Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Labour how many cases have been dealt with under Sections 40 and 41 of the Unemployment Act, 1934?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that statistics are not available to show how many cases have at some time been dealt with under Section 40 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934. In a recent week, however, inquiry showed that 448 allowances were paid, subject to one or other of the conditions set out in that Section. No applicant has been at any time dealt with under Section 41.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. James Hall, of Grange Villa, County Durham, residing in the Consett area of the Unemployment Assistance Board, has had his allowance reduced by 1s. 6d. because his son of 16½ years has had a weekly increase of 1s. 10d.; whether that action represents the policy of the Board; and, if not, what steps he intends to take in the matter?

Mr. Brown: Inquiry is being made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that this boy's earnings were 18s. gross per week on the average; that he actually loses 1s. 6d. out of an increase of 1s. 10d.; and that this case represents a very large section of the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board; and does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the policy?

Mr. Brown: I must not be expected to be able to give an answer before I have made inqunries. I should hesitate to accept a general statement of that kind. I remember that just a year ago the hon. Gentleman prophesied that there would be 400,000 cuts, but his prophecy has not proved right.

Mr. Lawson: We shall have some opportunity of discussing these figures later when we discuss the report; but does the right hon. Gentlemtn agree with this policy of taking 1s. 6d. a week off a boy who has had an increase of 1s. 10d., and whose gross wage is 18s.?

Mr. Brown: I have already said that I am making inquiries. I cannot be expected to give an answer or to decide policy on the statement in this question.

Mr. Shinwell: If the facts are as stated, will the right hon. Gentleman say explicitly whether it is the policy laid down by the Board?

Mr. Brown: I will not say that until I know what the facts are.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour what representations have been made to him regarding the exemption from the provisions of the unemployment assistance regulations of payments to be made to aged miners under the pension scheme now being promoted jointly by the South Wales coalowners and the South Wales Miners' Federation; and what is his decision?

Mr. Brown: As I stated in my reply to a question by the hon. Member on this subject, on 26th April, the representatives of the employers and workers were informed that, as persons of 65 years and over could not apply for allowances from the Board, no question arose of the Board reducing allowances payable to such men when they received the pension. Further, these pensions would be regarded as entirely for the personal requirements of the pensioners and would not be brought into account against the needs of an applicant in a household in which there was a miner in receipt of a pension.

Mr. Jenkins: Do we understand that to mean that they will not be taken into family calculation but will be completely disregarded?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the statement. It was made to a deputation and, I believe, fully satisfied them.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not pensions made available under this scheme will be disregarded entirely in calculating the family income?

Mr. Brown: These pensions will be regarded as entirely for the personal requirements of the pensioner, and will not be brought into account.

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the discontent existing in Adwick-le-Street, Doncaster, due to the reduction of the allowances of beneficiaries under the Unemployment Assistance Board; and will he make inquiry?

Mr. Brown: I understand from the Unemployment Assistance Board that adjustments of allowances in this area are proceeding in accordance with the recommendation of the local advisory committee, as in all other areas, but that in view of the hon. Member's question they are calling for a report. I may add that on the re-assessments in November and December, 1936, about 1,450 persons, in the Board's Doncaster area, received more than they had been receiving under the Standstill Arrangement; and on 25th June, 1937, the latest date for which figures are available, 62 persons were receiving less than they would have received under the Standstill Arrangement, otherwise than on account of the applicant's personal earnings.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give instructions in the case of Mr. Walter Walton, of 10, Sherwood Crescent, Rotherham, as one of hardship, that special consideration should be given owing to the present housing difficulty; and whether, as the man will be provided with a house by the Rotherham Corporation in due time, he will advise the chairman of the Unemployment Assistance Board that this is a case where payment may be continued until alternative housing accommodation is provided for him, seeing that this man lives alone and is unable to obtain a smaller house, and his allowance has been reduced from 22s. 6d. to 17s. out of which he has to pay 145. 4d. per week for rent?

Mr. Brown: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that the special circumstances in this case have received and will continue to receive very careful consideration. Meanwhile, if the applicant is aggrieved by the determination of 17s. 6d. a week which has been made in his case, it is open to him to exercise his rights of appeal as provided by the Act.

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE AND CHESHIRE.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the relative high percentage of unemployment in parts of North Staffordshire and Cheshire, of the high percentage in Kidsgrove, Biddulph, and Congleton; and what steps are being taken to introduce new industries into these areas with a view of providing employment?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to Sections 5 and 6 of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, which enable assistance to be given, in certain circumstances, for the development of industry in districts outside the Special Areas.

Mr. James Griffiths: Has any area been scheduled at all since that Act was passed?

Mr. Brown: Not yet, but I have had a number of deputations from various Members and bodies about it, and I believe that preparations are being made in certain areas.

INSURANCE (NON-MANUAL WORKERS).

Mr. White: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now state the decision of His Majesty's Government with regard to the recommendation of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, that the salary limit for unemployment insurance for non-manual workers should be raised from £250 to £400?

Mr. E. Brown: I cannot yet add to my previous replies on this matter.

Mr. White: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that this report has been in the hands of the Government since March, 1936, and that this is the twenty-third occasion on which the Government have been invited their decision? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman now inform the House whether this matter is coming to a decision:

Mr. Brown: Not yet.

Mr. E. Smith: Is it a fact that the majority of the Statutory Committee recommended what is stated in this question; and, if so, ought not the majority recommendation to be carried out?

Mr. Brown: It is the fact, and it will be given due weight when the consideration of the matter is finally completed.

Mr. White: Can the Minister tell us what grade of consideration is being given to it? Every type of consideration seems to have been suggested.

Mr. Brown: Active consideration.

BENEFIT CLAIM, NEWBURY.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered a copy of a letter to the manager of the Basingstoke Employment Exchange that was sent to him by the manager of a firm of clothiers, of Newbury, who had prosecuted a man for embezzlement in a case heard at the Basingstoke police court on Wednesday last; whether he is aware of the comments made at the police court by the magistrate; whether the manager of the exchange sent any reply to the writer of the letter; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?

Mr. E. Brown: I presume the hon. Member refers to replies given to the usual inquiries which were addressed to the employer in this case in connection with a claim for unemployment benefit. The claim has been decided by the Court of Referees, who had the employer's replies and the Press report of the police court proceedings before them. The answers to the two last parts of the question are in the negative.

Mr. Thorne: Do I understand, from the Minister's reply, that he has received a copy of the letter from the employers to the Employment Exchange; and is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that that letter was very libellous in character? Has any reply been sent to it from the Employment Exchange?

Mr. Brown: I have said that the answer to the last part of that question is in the negative. As the hon. Member knows, the case is a very difficult and complicated one, and I daresay he is also aware that

the person concerned is a member of an association, which has a right of appeal for him.

Mr. Thorne: As a matter of fact the manager ought to be "pinched" for sending such a letter.

TRANSFERENCE.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Labour how many young persons were transferred from Liverpool to Birmingham during the year 1936 for the purpose of taking up employment under arrangements made by his Department?

Mr. E. Brown: The transfer of juveniles under 18 years of age from Liverpool to Birmingham is arranged by the Liverpool and Birmingham local education authorities in co-operation with the Ministry of Labour, as both authorities exercise choice of employment powers under Section 81 of Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935. During 1936 278 boys and four girls were transferred from the area of the Liverpool education authority to that of the Birmingham education authority under the facilities provided by the Juvenile Transference Scheme.

Mr. Kirby: In thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him if he will be good enough to let me have details of any other young persons under 18 who have been sent from Liverpool under the schemes which have been arranged?

Mr. Brown: There are many people who go undr other schemes of which we have no knowledge, but, if the hon. Member has any individual case in mind, I shall be very glad to look into it.

Mr. Kirby: I only mean schemes under the Ministry.

Mr. Brown: I will, of course, gladly give any information that it is in my power to give.

EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (NON-PAYMENT).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of prosecutions that have taken place during the three years ended to the last convenient date against employers for failing to stamp the unemployment insurance cards of their employés?

Mr. E. Brown: During the three years ending 31st December, 1936, convictions against employers for non-payment of unemployment insurance contributions were obtained in 4,672 cases.

Mr. Day: Have all the arrears been paid?

Mr. Brown: That, of course, is a separate question, which ought to be put down.

Mr. Day: Have any employés been penalised through employers failing to pay?

Mr. Brown: I am sure the hon. Member will understand that that is not a reasonable question to put to me. I have answered precisely the question on the Paper. If the hon. Member has any other points arising out of the facts disclosed in my answer, perhaps he will either communicate with me or put them on the Paper.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: In view of the hardship entailed on employés of such firms, has the Minister considered any scheme whereby those employés can receive their stamps?

Mr. Brown: I cannot answer a general question of that kind; it does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite outside the question on the Paper.

COTTAGE HOMESTEADS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Commissioner for Special Areas has invited the Land Settlement Association to create 250 cottage homesteads on the outskirts of the busiest towns in the Midland and South of England for the special benefit of unemployed men over 45 years of age wih young families; and whether, as the association is appealing to Durham families to avail themselves of this scheme, he is satisfied that similar cottage homesteads could not profitably be established in Durham and thus avoid the transference of these families?

Mr. E. Brown: The cottage homesteads scheme involves the transfer of families to prosperous areas, where the younger members have good prospects of obtaining industrial employment while the head of the family can participate in a group holding. The proposal is at present in

the experimental stage, but it will not diminish the facilities already offered by the Commissioner for group holdings within the Special Areas.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that such holdings could serve a population of about 2,000,000 near the banks of the Tyne, and that also there is a distinct shortage of juvenile labour in the mines of Durham and Northumberland and in the factories on Tyneside?

Mr. Brown: I am aware of the facts. It is always our desire to settle workers, if possible, in or near their home towns.

Mr. Adams: May I take it that the Minister will again examine this question particularly as it affects Durham?

Mr. Brown: I have already indicated that the Commissioner for the Special Areas offers facilities in this matter.

MINERS.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to deal with the unemployed men 45 years of age and over, classed as miners on the unemployment register, who are not likely to be accepted as fit for immediate employment even if the standard set is reasonable?

Mr. E. Brown: I feel sure that many of the unemployed miners of 45 years of age and over will be accepted for reemployment in the industry if a reasonable standard is set and that they will be able to give good service, but I am always glad to afford the opportunity to men whose immediate suitability has been reduced, by long unemployment or other causes, to take a course at one of my Department's instructional centres to help to restore their physical condition.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that employers are refusing to employ men from 45 to 50 because they say they are not 100 per cent. fit, having been out of work for so many years? Has the Department any scheme to help to bring these men back into industry?

Mr. Brown: It is with that idea in mind that I have given the answer I have. If the hon. Member reads it at leisure, he will find it thoroughly sympathetic to the ideal that we both have in common.

Mr. Lawson: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is considering special arrangements to re-fit these men for their special kind of work?

Mr. Brown: That is what the answer says. As the hon. Gentleman knows it often depends whether a reasonable standard is or is not set.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (WAGES AND CONDITIONS).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt the recommendations of the Baillie Report on the Regulation of Wages and Conditions of Service of Road Transport Workers; and, if so, when it is proposed to introduce the necessary legislation?

Mr. E. Brown: The Report of this committee is under active consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a definite pronouncement with regard to it.

Mr. Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to whether it is intended to implement the Report? The House is going into recess for three months, and this is a very urgent matter?

Mr. Brown: It is a very important matter, and as such must be given adequate consideration, because, as the hon. Member knows, it may demand legislation.

MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS (DETENTION IN CUSTODY).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to secure that any person detained in custody upon a charge of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink shall, as soon as the police surgeon is sent for, be informed of his right to request the attendance of a doctor of his own selection?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): It is the practice of the Metropolitan Police to inform any person in custody on the charge in question that it is open to him to have a doctor of his own choice called, on the understanding that he will pay the doctor's fee. I understand that the general practice in other police forces is similar. I do not think that any special

instructions are called for, but I should be happy to look into the matter further if there is any reason to think that the procedure I have indicated is not followed.

Sir J. Mellor: Is that information given not later than the time when it is decided to send for the police surgeon?

Sir S. Hoare: I have told my hon. Friend that, as far as I understand it, the present position is quite satisfactory. If he has any further points perhaps he will be good enough to communicate with me.

Mr. Maxton: Is this a special privilege extended to motoring offenders and not available for other prisoners?

Sir S. Hoare: I could not say offhand. The question refers only to motorists.

Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. Gentleman himself think motorists should receive this special privilege?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that they had a special privilege.

NON-INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (CONVENTION).

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour what were the points of difficulty in the 1932 Convention concerning the minimum age of non-industrial employment which led the Governing Body of the International Labour Office to put the matter on the agenda of the International Labour Conference this year?

Mr. E. Brown: In putting the partial revision of the 1932 Convention on the Agenda of the 1937 Conference the Governing Body had in mind the following points:
The revision of the exceptions and exemptions in respect of children between 14 and 15 years of age;
The raising of the minimum age from 14 to 15 years;
The raising to 13 years of the minimum age for employment on light work outside school hours;
The registration of workers below a prescribed age;
The question of deleting the special provisions applying to India; and
The alteration of certain formal articles in the Convention.

Mr. Leslie: Was not the sole purpose to raise the age from 14 to 15?

Mr. Brown: No. The hon. Member asked me what were the points of difficulty which moved the Governing Body—it has nothing to do with the Government as such—to put the matter on the agenda. These are the points to which they attach importance, and which moved them to put it on the agenda, as is described in the question.

Mr. Leslie: Is it not the fact that in every case they were trying to improve the position, and that they did raise the age to 15?

Table showing in respect of insured persons, aged 16–64, classified as belonging to the jute industry, in England and Scotland, respectively, the estimated numbers insured at the beginning of July in each of the years 1934, 1935 and 1936, the average numbers recorded as unemployed in each of those years and the differences between these two series of figures.


Year.
Estimated Numbers Insured at July.
Average Numbers of Insured Persons Recorded as Unemployed.
Differences.


England.
Scotland.
England.
Scotland.
England.
Scotland.


1934
…
…
420
31,350
105
10,880
315
20,470


1935
…
…
400
30,190
113
8,868
287
21,322


1936
…
…
370
30,170
98
7,996
272
22,174

SHOPS ACTS.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Home Secretary the number of prosecutions that have taken place in Hastings and district of proprietors of hotels, restaurants and shops for non-observance of the provisions of the Shops (Sunday Trading Restrictions) Act, 1936, and the Shop Hours Acts, 1912 and 1913, with regard to the conditions of persons employed on such premises?

Sir S. Hoare: I have made inquiry of the Hastings Borough Council who are responsible for the enforcement of the Shops Act in the county borough area and am informed that there have been four prosecutions in the county borough for breaches of the provisions of the Shops Act, 1912, relating to conditions of employment. No prosecutions have been taken under the Shops Act, 1913, or the Shops (Sunday Trading Restriction) Act, 1936.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Baronet make inquiries and see if the local authorities there are enforcing the conditions for the protection of employés?

Mr. Brown: This matter is to be discussed later at Geneva.

JUTE INDUSTRY (WORKERS).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Labour the average number of workers employed in the jute industry in England and Scotland, respectively, during the years 1934, 1935, and 1936?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Sir S. Hoare: I have told the hon. Member that the local authority is the body that administers these Acts. If he has any specific point, I will certainly draw the attention of the borough council to it.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Chester City Council has repeatedly made orders under Section 6 of the Shops Act, 1928, for the extension of opening hours of shops during periodical illuminations; whether the Home Office is satisfied that a majority of traders applied for these orders; and is he aware that the council admits that they have not sufficient staff to see how many traders take advantage of these orders and cannot say if the assistants affected receive holidays and wages under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Shops Act, 1928?

Sir S. Hoare: I would point out to the hon. Member that the responsibility for making the orders to which he refers rests with the Chester City Council, and the orders are not subject to my approval. I have, however, made inquiry and understand that such orders have been made on


a number of occasions, and that the council were satisfied that there was the necessary majority of traders in favour of the orders. As regards the last part of the question, I would point out that, if assistants do not receive the holidays and wages to which they are entitled, Parliament has provided a remedy in the Subsection mentioned.

Mr. Leslie: In view of the fact that the Council has declared that it has not sufficient staff to see that these orders are carried out properly, can the Home Office intervene in any way?

Sir S. Hoare: I am under the impression that the Home Office cannot intervene, but I will draw the attention of the council to the matter.

Mr. Jagger: Is Chester a holiday resort entitled to do this, and what constitutes a holiday resort?

Sir S. Hoare: I made the same inquiry myself, and I found that it was not clearly defined in the Act as to which districts can call themselves holiday resorts.

Mr. Short: Will the right hon. Baronet consult with the Minister of Health on the matter? There is great dissatisfaction regarding the administration.

Sir S. Hoare: That is a wider question. If the hon. Gentleman puts it down, I will consider it.

Mr. H. Haslam: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the many difficulties and hardships which have arisen in seaside resorts owing to the operation of the Shops (Sunday Trading Restriction) Act, 1936, and the inconvenience experienced by Sunday visitors, mostly working-class people who are using the only day available to them for a visit to the seaside; and whether, in view of the serious nature of the hardship which seaside traders are suffering, he will inquire into the anomalies which exist under this Act with a view to introducing remedial measures?

Sir S. Hoare: I do not think that sufficient experience has vet been gained of the operation of the Act to justify the suggestions in my hon. Friend's question. It is true that certain complaints have been received in the Department, but these have related mainly to the

operation of the provisions in the Act relating to compensatory holidays for assistants employed on Sunday. My hon. Friend will recall that the House recently refused permission for the introduction of a Bill to modify the application of these provisions in the case of holiday resorts. So far as the convenience of visitors is concerned, I would point out that provision is made in the Act to allow the sale on Sunday of a large number of commodities in order to meet the reasonable needs of, the general public; and that in addition local authorities in holiday resorts are empowered to permit the sale on Sunday of various other articles which are commonly required by holiday makers.

Mr. Haslam: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware. that seaside places catering for large numbers of the working classes find in practice that they require a great number of articles which are not permitted to be sold on Sunday?

Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that exemptions were made after full consultation with the local bodies of the holiday resorts.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is strong opinion in some of these places that the exemptions go too far?

PUBLICATIONS (INTERCEPTION IN POST).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary on how many occasions during the three years ended to the last convenient date the Postmaster-General has been instructed by warrants issued by him to intercept books or other publications; and whether he, in connection with his legal advisers, is considering taking any further action?

Sir S. Hoare: The present system of preventing the transmission of indecent matter through the post is, I believe, working effectively and I have had no reason to consider the taking of any further action.

Mr. Day: How many warrants have been issued during the last 12 months?

Sir S. Hoare: I understand that the number of warrants never has been made public by this or any other Government.

ELECTIONS (PRESIDING OFFICERS).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the increased numbers of the electorate in many electoral divisions, any special instructions have been issued by his Department to the returning officers to employ more presiding officers and polling clerks to cope with these conditions; and are the necessary steps taken to ensure that officers who have not had any previous experience have been thoroughly instructed and are conversant with their duties?

Sir S. Hoare: The returning officers are responsible for the provision of polling stations and for the appointment and instruction of presiding officers and poll clerks. In carrying out these duties they would take into account any increase in the number of electors, and I have not heard of any complaints.

Mr. Day: Do I understand that no complaints were made after the last election as to congestion, or delay in the count?

Sir S. Hoare: No, we have received no such complaints.

PRIVATE ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS.

Mr. Messer: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the capture of an escaped wolf at a private zoological garden at Dudley, Worcestershire; whether he is aware that bombs and fireworks were used in an endeavour to drive it from an outhouse where it had taken refuge and that after two hours suffering it was forced in a very sick condition into a cage; that a bear has twice escaped from the same zoological garden and on each occasion was stunned before being recaptured; and that at a private zoological garden in Liverpool a keeper was lately killed by a leopard; and whether, in view of the suffering entailed to the animals and of the danger to human beings, he will consider legislation to make privately-owned zoological gardens and travelling menageries illegal?

Sir S. Hoare: I have made inquiries in regard to these cases, but, as at present advised, I do not think that they afford any grounds for legislation on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Messer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in view of the large

number of animals which have recently escaped from private zoos it is desirable in the interests of the public that stricter supervision should be exercised, and is it not possible for some efficient method of control to be established?

Sir S. Hoare: My information does not go to support the allegation that there have been many cases. My information is that these cases have not involved either cruelty to animals or injury to the public, and in the circumstances I do not think further legislation is necessary.

ACCIDENT (SEATON CAREW IRONWORKS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information in connection with an accident, in which a man was killed and two men were injured, at the Seaton Carew Ironworks of the South Durham Steel and Iron Company; and whether he can say what was the cause of the accident and give any other information about the matter?

Sir S. Hoare: I have received a preliminary report, but pending the inquest the hon. Member will appreciate that I am not in a position to make any statement. The circumstances will, of course, be fully investigated.

OBSCENE FILMS.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Home Secretary whether he has taken any steps to deal with the circulation of obscene films in this country?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to him by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on Monday last.

Mr. Kelly: In view of the number in circulation at the moment, will some steps be taken to prevent any further circulation?

Sir S. Hoare: I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend said the other day. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he has no knowledge of any such circulation. If the hon. Member will forward me any information I will cause inquiry to be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS.

CONDITIONS.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Home Secretary whether he is contemplating the setting up of a Royal Commission to review prison conditions in this country?

Sir S. Hoare: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the question of prison conditions is engaging my close attention, and I have already indicated various directions in which I think further progress is to be sought. During recent years different aspects of the problem have been investigated by three Departmental Committees, and I do not think that the appointment of a Royal Commission is called for at the present stage.

Mr. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Prison Commissioners with a view to finding the money for new buildings?

Sir S. Hoare: This matter is receiving my attention, including the question of new buildings.

LOCATION.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the great hardship suffered by North Country convicts and their relatives by reason of the fact that all the convict prisons are in the South of England and that the cost of visiting is therefore prohibitive to the majority, he will consider the possibility of making official provision for the payment of travelling expenses to enable the relatives of convicts to pay a yearly visit to their relatives in prison; and will he, in planning future development of prison camps and colonies, bear in mind the desirability of providing a centre for convicts in the North of England?

Sir S. Hoare: The policy as regards prisoners serving long sentences is to use different establishments for different types of prisoners instead of placing in the same establishment habitual offenders and men who have not criminal records. In pursuance of this policy some convicts serve their sentences at Wakefield Prison; but this policy of classification necessarily involves detaining certain prisoners in establishments at a long distance from their homes, and I recognise that hardship sometimes results in the matter of visits. As a result of a gift from a private source,

a limited fund is available to assist relatives to visit men who are serving life sentences in Maidstone Prison, but there is no fund available for other cases. Whether it would be right to make some provision from public funds to assist relatives to visit in special cases is a difficult question to which I propose to give consideration.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister consider using this limited fund so that the well-behaved prisoners can visit their relatives instead of their relatives visiting them?

CLUBS (LEGISLATION).

Mr. Alan Herbert: asked the Home Secretary what is the definition of a bogus club accepted by his Department; what is the estimated number of such clubs; whether he is preparing a Measure to deal with them; and, if so, whether he will take note of the opinions strongly expressed in this House and elsewhere during the present Parliament that no solution of the problem will be generally acceptable which includes the handing over of all clubs to the control of the licensing justices, or the granting to the police of the right of entry to all clubs without a search warrant?

Sir S. Hoare: I do not think that there is any ambiguity about the meaning of the expression "bogus club" in relation to abuses of the licensing laws. I have no information as to the actual number of such establishments in existence. In answer to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) on Monday last. As regards the last part of the question, I shall certainly take account of the opinions which have been expressed in different quarters on these and other aspects of this controversial subject.

Mr. Ammon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very often the decisions of the licensing authorities are rendered nugatory by the opening of these clubs in place of properly conducted licensed premises closed under the redundancy and compensation laws by the licensing bench?

Sir S. Hoare: I am very carefully considering that and other aspects of this particular question.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill will definitely be included in the programme of legislation for next Session?

Sir S. Hoare: That must be a matter for decision nearer the time of the new Session.

SPANISH REFUGEE CHILDREN.

Mr. Petherick: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the disturbances caused by the Basque children at Brechfa, in Wales, he will arrange for the return of the children in question to their parents in cases in which it is safe to do so?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) on 21st July.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Would it not meet the convenience of my right hon. Friend if all these children were removed to Blair Atholl at once?

Miss Wilkinson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in these extraordinarily difficult circumstances only a very small percentage of boys, some of them very bad shell-shock cases, have proved difficult to control; that they are being given the very best possible care; and that this type of propaganda against them is really in the worst possible international taste?

Mr. Petherick: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that he is ultimately responsible for law and order in this country, he has received any report from the chief constable of Carmarthenshire about the disturbances recently caused by Basque children in that county; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday on this matter in answer to the question by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). In view of the steps which are being taken by the

Voluntary Committee to repatriate the boys responsible for the disturbances and to provide for the supervision of the boys remaining at Brechfa, there is no reason to anticipate further difficulty, but the position will, of course, be watched.

Mr. Petherick: In consideration of the fact that these boys did a great deal of damage in Brechfa, that one of them chased a cook with a knife, and that in many cases their mental condition does not conform to strictly orthodox standards according to the organisation responsible for their good conduct, will my hon. Friend make sure that the Home Office gives very great attention to the children that remain in other parts of the country in order to make quite sure that these disturbances do not recur?

Mr. Lloyd: As a matter of fact, a cook by mistake cut one of the children with his own knife before the incident occurred, and I think it will be agreed that the Voluntary Committee have done right in removing a certain number of these children.

Mr. Jagger: Should not the hon. Gentleman discourage hon. Members who spend their time chasing these kids?

STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE, MERTHYR TYDVIL.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of the stipendiary magistrate for Merthyr Tydvil who, at a meeting of the Carmarthen Conservative and Unionist Association, on 26th July, proposed the adoption of a certain candidate; whether he is aware that this is the second occasion upon which the stipendiary has taken an active part in political work in South Wales; and, in view of the fact that his active participation in politics must adversely affect his work as stipendiary magistrate in an important industrial area, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Dingle Foot: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of the stipendiary magistrate for Merthyr Tydvil in attending a meeting of a political association at Carmarthen, on 26th July, and there moving that the said association should agree to support a certain prospective


Parliamentary candidate for the Carmarthen division; whether he is aware that the same stipendiary magistrate issued a statement at the last General Election urging the electors of Carmarthen to support a certain candidate and reject another candidate; and whether, since it is generally recognised that stipendiary magistrates should avoid identifying themselves prominently with party politics, he will say what action, if any, he proposes to take?

Sir S. Hoare: My attention had not previously been called to this matter, but I am in communication with the stipendiary magistrate.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor in office secured from this stipendiary an undertaking after the last General Election that he would take no further part in political life; and in view of the fact that this stipendiary has broken this undertaking, what action does he propose to take?

Sir S. Hoare: I was not aware of that fact, but, as I have told the hon. Member, I am making inquiries, and I prefer not to give an opinion on the question until I have got the facts.

Mr. George Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation consisting of the hon. Member who put down this question and hon. Members who represent the area over which the stipendiary presides in order to deal with this and other complaints?

Sir S. Hoare: I am always ready to discuss these questions with my colleagues in this House, but, at the same time, as I have asked for information on this particular question, I prefer to go no further than I have to-day until I have heard from the stipendiary.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State communicate to me the reply he receives from the stipendiary?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, I think I can give the undertaking, certainly in substance.

Mr. G. Hall: Will that include information as to ,he action of the Home Office?

Sir S. Hoare: I think that would naturally follow.

Mr. Ede: Should not this man have exactly the same consideration as the dockyard worker?

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information as to what proportion of the required 300,000 street-wardens for air raids have now been secured; and whether all these are persons who, in a national emergency, would not be required for other services?

Mr. Lloyd: Detailed information as to the numbers of wardens enrolled in individual districts is not available, but it is known that many towns and districts have obtained large numbers. Local authorities were advised at the outset as to the categories of men whom it was undesirable to enrol on account of their value for other national services.

Captain Ramsay: Is my hon. Friend keeping in touch with the situation, and, if so, will he give the figures of wardens enrolled to the House fairly soon?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly; the question of figures will arise at a later stage.

Mr. Simmonds: What is the apparent age limit for these wardens?

Mr. Lloyd: The age of 30 is the limit, but the local authorities will find men and women who are of much more mature age.

Mr. E. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of us on this side of the House appreciate the voluntary work which is being done by these people, who may be called upon to deal with the new technique of aggression which is encouraged by the hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to make any further announcement as to the Government contribution to the cost of air raid precautions services?

Sir S. Hoare: I am advised that legislation will be required in order to place Government expenditure on air raid precautions on a proper statutory basis and


to remove doubts as to the powers of local authorities. A Bill for this purpose is being drafted; when it has reached a more advanced stage, an opportunity will be afforded to the representatives of local authorities of conferring with the Government, and I hope that it may be possible to reach a satisfactory agreement as to the allocation of expenditure. Many local authorities have already prepared plans and in many cases entered into financial commitments. Whatever financial arrangement is ultimately decided, will be applied retrospectively to a date which it is contemplated should be 1st January, 1937. I trust, therefore, that those local authorities who have not yet begun the preparation of plans will not think it necessary to wait until the financial arrangements have been placed on a statutory basis.

Mr. Simmonds: In view of the fact that the delays that have taken place in settling this financial question, even if it were settled next week, must affect the efficiency of this service for several years to come, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he will do his very best by compromise to arrive at a solution with the local authorities by the end of the Recess?

Sir S. Hoare: Certainly I will do everything in my power to arrive at an agreed settlement as soon as possible.

Mr. Louis Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of several authorities they are willing to shoulder some part of this burden, but they consider 30 per cent. an excessive amount?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will any special consideration be given to districts where the population is very congested and very poor, and quite unable to afford the vast sums, or even part of the sum, required for adequate protection?

Sir. S. Hoare: The questions raised in the two supplementaries are among the questions that I am considering in connection with this whole problem. They are exactly the kind of questions that I am anxious to discuss further with the representatives of the local authorities.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether it is the Government's intention to provide compensation in time

of war in respect of members of air raid precautionary services who might be killed or injured while on duty?

Sir S. Hoare: I can assure my hon. Friend that, so far as the present Government are concerned, it would in the event of war lay before Parliament proposals for the payment of compensation which would cover members of public air raid precautionary services, not otherwise entitled to compensation, who might be killed or injured while on duty.

Mr. Simmonds: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend has not in mind the intention to include this provision as far as possible in the legislation in the autumn?

Sir S. Hoare: I was not considering the question of specially including this sort of provision in the legislation in the autumn, for the reason that our legislation will be dealing with peace time, whereas the hon. Member's question refers to war time.

DEPORTATION ORDER (DAVE YASKIEL).

Major Milner: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Dave Yaskiel, a German-Jewish refugee, married to an Englishwoman and living in this country for some years, was recently arrested and kept in Brixton Prison for six weeks without trial; on whose authority this action was taken and on what grounds; why Yaskiel has been threatened with deportation to Germany contrary to the treaty concerning German refugees, dated 4th July, 1936, and signed by this country; and what further action, if any, is proposed to be taken?

Sir S. Hoare: This man was arrested on 19th April, in pursuance of a deportation order made against him by my predecessor, with a view to arrangements being made for his deportation to Germany. His detention in custody was prolonged because he was required to give evidence in a criminal trial which was pending, and the German authorities declined, without inquiry in Germany, to issue him a new passport in place of the German passport with which he had entered the country and which he alleged he had lost. Yaskiel was instructed to leave the country on 11th January by my predecessor after very careful con-


sideration of his case, and the deportation order was only made when it became apparent that he had no intention of complying with these instructions. The deportation order was made with due regard to the terms of the Provisional Arrangement concerning the Status of Refugees from Germany as ratified by His Majesty's Government. The question of passport facilities has been taken up with the German Government by the Foreign Office, and the question of his deportation is meanwhile suspended.

Major Milner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this man was kept for six weeks without trial? Surely that is not the usual procedure in this country, whatever it may be in others. Is it not a fact that the German authorities will not accept him, or, if they do, very serious consequences will ensue, and because he is a Stateless person is he not entitled to every consideration from His Majesty's Government?

Sir S. Hoare: We are acting in strict accordance with the agreement arranged at the instigation of the Refugees Department of the League of Nations. As I have told the hon. and gallant Member, for the time being the question of deportation is in suspense. I am ready to discuss with the hon. and gallant Member the details of the case, and to take no action until I have had time to do that.

Major Milner: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

DIVORCE (MAINTENANCE OF WIFE AND CHILDREN).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the increased facilities for divorce provided by the new Act, he will take into consideration a revision of the law regarding the maintenance of the wife and children of the first marriage in order that a second marriage by the husband and father may not leave them destitute?

Sir S. Hoare: The court in granting a decree of divorce already has power in proper cases to award a sum by way of maintenance to be paid for the benefit of the wife and of any children of the marriage, and the position in this respect will not be materially affected when the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Bill become law. I am not aware of any need for further legislation on the point.

Miss Wilkinson: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the statement of the President of the Divorce Court, made quite recently, dealing with the question of petitions by a first wife for maintenance of children by a first marriage, and in view of the very serious consequences to women left with young children, cannot the right hon. Gentleman go into the question of the somewhat out-of-date condition of the law in regard to maintenance?

Sir S. Hoare: In the first place, I am informed that it is very doubtful whether I have any locus standi in this question at all. Even if I had I do not gather that the observations referred to by the hon. Lady affect the point which she mentions. The answer is as I have given it to the hon. Lady.

FIRE BRIGADE SERVICE (PENSION RIGHTS).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to take any action in view of the recent judgment that men serving in fire brigades engaged in duties such as ambulance work do not come within the Fire Brigades Pension Act, 1925, and that consequently a large number of firemen are not covered by any pension scheme?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 8th July to a question by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison). A conference with representatives of the local authorities and of the fire service was held on the 27th instant to consider the general issues raised, and it was agreed to hold a further conference as soon as the local authorities have completed their inquiries into the extent of the performance of extraneous duties by members of fire brigades.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS (COST).

Mr. Ede: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (1) the average cost per place of elementary schools for juniors and infants, as shown by tenders received by local education authorities for the three months ended 30th June, 1937, and for the three corresponding months in 1936;
(2) the average cost per place of elementary schools for pupils over II years of age, as shown by tenders received by local education authorities for the three months ended 30th June, 1937, and for the three corresponding months in 1936;
(3) the average cost per place of secondary schools as shown by tenders received by local education authorities for the three months ended 30th June, 1937, and for the three corresponding months in 1936?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I am having the necessary figures worked out on such information as is at my disposal, and will send them to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Ede: Has the hon. Member had any indication from the local education authorities that they are perturbed at the rising cost of building, and is it having any effect on their building programmes to implement last year's Act?

Mr. Lindsay: It is perfectly well known that the cost of building has risen but I cannot say whether we have had any direct communications about it.

TEACHING SERVICE, IRELAND (SUPERANNUATION).

Miss Rathbone: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has considered the case for ex-gratia consideration and treatment of teachers who, by reason of the fact that they were for a period preceding the political changes in Ireland engaged in technical or art instruction in that country, are now debarred from having their period of service in Ireland counted for reckoning superannuation and bonus, in spite of the fact that throughout their teaching careers they have contributed pro rata with other teachers to all forms of Imperial taxation and dues, and had in the majority of cases returned to English teaching before the passing of the Teachers' Superannuation Act and become contributors under the Act on a par with other teacher colleagues?

Mr. Lindsay: This matter has recently been the subject of prolonged consideration by my Department. As the hon. Member realises, the periods of service in Ireland of the teachers in question cannot be treated as pensionable service

under the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, though such periods are admitted as qualifying service for the purpose of entitlement to pension in respect of contributory service in England and Wales. The question of any ex-gratia payment to these teachers in respect of their service in Ireland is not a matter for my Department, whose jurisdiction does not extend beyond England and Wales. The argument that these teachers, having equally with other teachers contributed towards Imperial taxes, are entitled to some special superannuation benefits from Exchequer funds, would be valid only if the payment of taxes carried with it a right to pension benefits.

Miss Rathbone: Can the hon. Member tell me whether there is any Department that has it in its power to make these ex-gratia payments? Is it in the power of the Treasury to do so?

Mr. Lindsay: I think it is not. I should like notice of the question.

EXCHANGE VISITS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will make it financially possible to arrange either for the temporary exchange of elementary scholars with similar children from abroad or for British elementary scholars to visit foreign countries?

Mr. Lindsay: If the hon. Member has in mind arrangements which would involve the attendance of elementary school children at similar schools in foreign countries, I do not regard the suggestion as practicable, since the children's linguistic attainments would hardly make the visit profitable. Apart from this, however, arrangements have been made by local education authorities in a number of cases by which groups of selected children have visited foreign countries and, where the Board of Education have approved these arrangements, they have been recognised for grant. I must add, however, that the value of such visits depends not merely upon money, but very largely upon careful personal preparation, and I do not think I would be justified, on the experience so far gained, in encouraging local education authorities to embark upon any schemes for a large expansion of this activity.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Member not agree that if these exchange visits are


necessary in the case of secondary school children they are even more necessary in the case of children from elementary schools?

Mr. Lindsay: I do not follow the hon. Member's logic. A large number of children who go to secondary schools are working-class children, and I think these exchange visits are probably more valuable in the case of secondary school children.

Mr. Petherick: Is it not necessary that they should be taught first rate English first?

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not necessary that our children should belong not only to this country but to the human race?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

TUBERCULOSIS (WALES).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now make a statement on the result of his consultations with the Welsh National Memorial Association in reference to the steps to be taken to deal more effectively with the problem of tuberculosis in Wales?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am not at present in a position to make such a statement. I am, however, at all times in close touch with the work of the Welsh National Memorial Association and, as mentioned in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 27th May, a survey of the services provided by the association is being carried out by a medical officer of the Welsh Board of Health. I am awaiting the report on that survey. I am hoping to meet representatives of the association and of the local authorities when I visit South Wales in the autumn.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether the responsible authorities in Wales have submitted satisfactory proposals for the provision of an adequate service under the provisions of the Midwives Act, 1936; whether any of the authorities have failed to submit satisfactory proposals; and whether he is satisfied that within the financial and other provisions of the Act an adequate service can be established in Wales, having regard to the gravity of the problem in the principality?

Sir K. Wood: All the local supervising authorities in Wales except one have submitted proposals which are generally satisfactory although, in some instances points of detail are still under consideration. The authority which has not yet submitted proposals which I can regard as satisfactory is considering the submission of revised proposals. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the arrangements made by the Derbyshire County Council under the Midwives Act, 1936, Section 1, are such as will geographically be adequate for the needs of the area?

Sir K. Wood: I am informed that the county council are satisfied that their arrangements are adequate for the present needs of the county. This question will be reviewed after sufficient experience has been obtained of the working of the arrangements, and I understand that the county council are prepared if necessary to appoint additional midwives.

OFFICES (INSPECTION).

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have responded to the circular recently issued by the Ministry in connection with the inspection of offices under the Public Health Act?

Sir K. Wood: The Act does not come into operation until 1st October next. I propose to wait for a reasonable period after that before making inquiries as to the action taken by local authorities.

Mr. Short: Do I understand that no local authority has replied to the circular indicating its willingness to carry out the provisions of the Act?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The Act does not come into operation until next October. I communicated with the local authorities, but I do not think the circular called for any reply. I propose to follow up the matter after a reasonable time has elapsed.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health whether he will have inquiries made into the position of a worker who has been instructed by the local medical


officer of health not to go to work owing to the presence of diphtheria or some other infectious disease in the house, with a view to ascertaining what benefit under such circumstances is available to him?

Sir K. Wood: I am sending the hon. Member a full statement on the subject which it is not possible to deal with within the limits of an oral reply.

Mr. Mander: Is it desirable or proper that a man who has been instructed by a medical officer not to go to work because of infection in the house, should stand in a queue outside an Employment Exchange?

Sir K. Wood: I should not like to answer a question of that kind. I would invite the hon. Member during the Recess to consider the long statement which I propose to send him. On his return he may like to put another question.

MENTAL HYGIENE.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Health why, in view of the importance of mental hygiene in the life of the community, this subject is not being included in the forthcoming national health campaign and public attention is not being directed to the question of mental health services?

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health whether having regard to the vital importance of mental health to the community and the growing public interest and need of enlightenment in the subject, he will have it included in the health campaign propaganda which is to be carried out in the autumn under the auspices of the Government?

Sir Kingsley Wood: Opportunities will certainly be taken in the course of the campaign to call attention to the importance of mental as well as bodily health.

Mr. Gallacher: Would not the right hon. Gentleman have to make a hole in the heads of some hon. Members behind him?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LUTON (ELECTRIC HEATING).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health for what reason the Luton local authority have been refused sanction to instal electric heating points in their

council houses, the cost of which was to be met by loan; and whether it is the policy of his Department not to sanction the installation of heating points in council houses?

Sir K. Wood: I am anxious that rents on municipal housing estates shall be kept at as a low a level as possible—a position which can only be maintained by the exercise of reasonable economy. The houses erected by the borough council are in my opinion already provided with reasonable heating facilities, and although I am always ready to give consideration on their merits to proposals for the provision of conveniences and amenities, I was not satisfied that the proposal in question was justified.

Mr. McEntee: Is it not the case that the Department have sanctioned these points in the case of similar houses? Are we to take it that this means a change of policy by the Department?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. As I have said, I have endeavoured to consider this case on its merits. I am most anxious to keep the rents of these houses as low as possible.

RURAL WORKERS.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the need of improved houses for farm workers and the increased number of applications for grants now being made under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, he will prolong the operation of the Act beyond the date in 1938 when its provisions terminate?

Sir K. Wood: I am expecting to receive soon a comprehensive report on rural housing from the Central Housing Advisory Committee, and this is one of the matters which will need to be considered in the light of the committee's report.

STOKE.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied with the rate of progress in rehousing in Stoke, Fenton, and Longton; is he aware of the constant demand of the Longton Traders' Association that houses should be built at rents that people can afford to pay on the many sites that have been cleared; and what is his position with reference to that request?

Sir K. Wood: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part of the question, I have recently received representations from the North Staffordshire Traders' Council and have asked for the observations of the local authority.

Mr. Mathers: Will not the right hon. Gentleman inform local authorities that properly supervised schemes to build houses by direct labour provide better and cheaper houses and thus allow lower rents to be charged?

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he will have an inquiry made as to whether the houses built at Kilsyth and Johnstone which are let at a rental of five shillings a week could be built in Fenton and Longton, and what would be the rent of such houses; also whether any of the Manchester Chamberlain, or Mitchell Gardens, or Greenwood or Compton or Kingsley Wood houses could be built in Stoke, Fenton, and Longton; and, if so, will he take steps to expedite the preparation of the best schemes to suit the area?

Sir K. Wood: The rents at which houses can be let necessarily vary with the circumstances of particular districts and the decision as to the type of house best suited for a particular district is one for the responsible local authority. I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the local authority.

FLATS, BEXLEY HEATH.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that some residents in Freta Road, Bexley Heath, have objected to the building of a block of several-storied flats on the site of 18, Freta Road, on the ground that the proposed flats have not fireproof floors and that the outside staircase proposed reaches only to the second storey; whether he is satisfied that the proposed plans fulfil all the necessary requirements of the relevant Acts; and what protection will still be afforded to the objectors?

Sir K. Wood: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The erection of new buildings is controlled by by-laws which are made and enforced by the local authority. If it is alleged that this building contravenes the by-laws, the matter is one for the

courts, and is not one in which I have any jurisdiction. The position has been fully explained to the objector in correspondence and at interviews with my Department.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (TECHNICAL STAFFS).

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health what is the annual salary his Department recommends town and country planning authorities should pay so as to obtain fully qualified assistants capable of giving advice on the subjects covered by the Town and Country Planning Acts?

Sir K. Wood: The remuneration paid by planning authorities to their officers is a matter entirely within their discretion, and I have made no recommendation to them on the subject.

Mr. Bossom: Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate how much has been offered in advertisements to fully qualified assistants for this complicated work?

Sir K. Wood: This is a matter entirely for the local authority.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health who are the actual members of the committee investigating as to whether his Department has or has not sufficient authority to safeguard historic houses and beautiful sites; and how many times since 10th February, 1937, has this committee met for this specific purpose?

Sir K. Wood: As previously stated, the investigation is being carried out in my Department, and I am reviewing the position myself before taking the views of the Town and Country Planning Advisory Committee.

Mr. Bossom: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, will he, before this committee reports ask it to investigate how much financial aid it is imperative should be given so that this Act can be put into effect?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, and I have no doubt that the suggestion will also be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

OVERCROWDING (EXCHEQUER GRANTS).

Colonel Nathan: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities in England and Wales have made application for Exchequer grants in aid of accommodation to be provided, otherwise than


in blocks of flats on expensive sites, for the abatement of overcrowding under the terms of Section 32 of the Housing Act, 1935, and Section 107 of the Housing Act, 1936; and the number and amount of the grants approved by him under those Sections up to the end of June, 1937?

Sir K. Wood: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Up to the end of June applications have been received from 151 local authorities, and grants have been approved for 43 local authorities covering 2,459 houses, the grants being £5 for 1,805 houses, £4 for 446 houses, £3 for 48 houses and £2 for 160 houses for a period of 20 years in each case. As regards the remainder 45 are under consideration, 17 have been withdrawn, 24 have been deferred in agreement with the local authority and 22 have been refused.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (RECRUITMENT).

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Minister of Health whether he is able to report any progress in the direction of implementing the recommendation of the Hadow Committee on local government officers for the establishment of a standing committee to advise local authorities in matters relating to the recruitment of their staffs?

Sir K. Wood: I have conferred with the associations concerned and proposals for the establishment of this committee have been drawn up by an informal committee and have been submitted to the London County Council and the associations. These proposals have been accepted by the London County Council, by the Associations of County Councils, Urban District and Rural District Councils, and by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, but I regret to say that at a meeting held last week the Council of the Municipal Corporations Association decided that they would not participate in the scheme.

Mr. Ede: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will feel compelled to drop the scheme, or will he commence it with the comparatively wide range of opinion he has managed to bring within it?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that the Municipal Corporations Association have not seen their way to participate, but I see no reason why it should not go on.

TOLLERTON AERODROME.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Health when the Nottingham Corporation purchased the land which is used by the Nottingham Flying School, Tollerton; the price paid for this land; and the person or persons from whom the Nottingham Corporation purchased the land?

Sir K. Wood: The land was purchased in April, 1929, for £4,806 from Sir Albert Ball, Mr. H. A. Longbottom, Mr. G. W. Price and Albert Ball, Nottingham, Limited.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the hardship arising out of the final decision of his referees that a widow's pension shall cease when the recipient has been deemed guilty of breaking the insurance regulations by misconduct through cohabitation, although magistrates in a police court have decided that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct and have discharged the accused; and whether he will take steps to remedy this?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The question whether a widow is disentitled to a pension for the reason mentioned is one for my decision, with a right of appeal to the referees, whose decision is by the Act made final and conclusive. The question which comes before the court is whether the widow was guilty of fraud in attempting to obtain, or in continuing to receive, a pension to which she was not entitled.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the extraordinary paradox of a woman being judged to be innocent by the court and guilty by his own officers, and in view of that fact, will he not take some steps to see that the woman who has been judged to be innocent by the court shall receive the justice to which she is entitled?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension.


If he will kindly see me some time after questions, I shall be happy to explain the matter to him.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (PROVISION OF MILK).

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of a man and wife a child under five years of age who are attempting to feed themselves, after the payment of rent, on a few shillings a week received from the Unemployment Assistance Board, and who have applied, without success, for free milk for the child to the local relieving officer, the Unemployment Assistance Board, and the milk distribution centre at the Camberwell Town Hall; and whether he will take any action in the matter?

Sir K. Wood: My attention had not previously been drawn to this case. I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. E. Smith: In view of the fact that the House rises to-morrow, and that we shall not have an opportunity of raising this matter again before the Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give his personal attention to it?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, I will certainly do that; and if the hon. Member is interested in the case, I will let him know the result.

ARGENTINE AND BRAZILIAN RAIL- WAYS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it will be useless to reconsider revising the embargo on the issue of foreign loans, in the expectation that British investors will again lend their savings abroad for the benefit of British export trade, while the present treatment of their savings invested in Argentine and Brazilian railways is allowed to continue without vigorous protest by His Majesty's Government; and will he now take immediate steps in defence of these British investments?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I am aware that, while the general position of investors in Argentine and Brazilian railway securities has

recently shown a welcome improvement, the position as regards a number of such securities remains unsatisfactory to the holder. In the event of difficulties arising which cannot be settled by direct discussion between the British companies and the foreign authorities concerned, His Majesty's Government would be ready to consider any request for support made by such companies. Apart form this, I do not think that there are any steps which His Majesty's Government can usefully take at the Present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to add anything to his statement with regard to the proposal to set up a committee of inquiry to investigate the claim of civil servants who are transferred from temporary to permanent positions, that allowance should be made for years of temporary service for pensionable purposes?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir.

Mr. Mathers: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a communication alleging that the statement he made the other day contained gross inaccuracies, and is he taking steps to answer those charges and to reconsider the whole matter?

Sir J. Simon: I have not personally seen any communication, but I have seen a reference to it in the newspaper. I shall, of course, give every consideration to it. A mere statement that I have been inaccurate does not affect me at all, but if there is something in it which attempts to prove that I am inaccurate, I will, of course, answer it.

UNESTABLISIIED EMPLOYES.

Mr. Jagger: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the three organisations representing ex-Service messengers, paper keepers, record keepers, and press keepers wrote to him in June, and again on 12th July, asking that an interview be granted them in order that they might have an opportunity of pressing the claims of their members; and whether he can see his way to grant the interview at an early date?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The organisations concerned were informed on 23rd July that discussions were proceeding through the machinery of the National Whitley Council with regard to a claim for the extension of the area of establishment in the Civil Service and to the possibility of removing any anomalies arising from the existing measure of establishment. It was added that in these circumstances no useful purpose would be served for independent discussions relating to a part of the main issue to be carried on concurrently.

NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBU- TION (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Major Milner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can indicate the estimated amount co-operative societies will pay by way of National Defence Contribution?

Sir J. Simon: National Defence Contribution is a new tax and is calculated on the current income of the contributor. The hon. and gallant Member will, therefore, appreciate that it is impossible to forecast with precision what sum will be paid by the co-operative societies, but, with this reserve, I may say that it is estimated that the yield in a full year will be in the neighbourhood of £250,000.

Mr. Gallacher: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of how much the cooperative societies would have paid under the original tax?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot answer that without notice.

POWER ALCOHOL (DUTY).

Mr. R. Acland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the loss to the revenue due to the fact that alcohol used for methylation for power purposes is not liable for Excise duty?

Sir J. Simon: The yield of a duty on power alcohol at the same rate as petrol would amount, at the present rate of consumption, to a little over £100,000 a year.

Mr. Acland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of alcohol freed from excise duty for methylation for power purposes during the first six months

of this year, and the corresponding figures for 1935 and 1936; and whether he will state why this alcohol, a large proportion of which is obtained from imported molasses, is not liable to duty?

Sir J. Simon: The antity of alcohol made into power methylated spirits during the first six months of 1937 was 4,030,000 proof gallons; the corresponding figures for 1935 and 1936 were 708,000 and 1,223,000 proof gallons; with regard to the last part of the question, it has not so far been considered. that the scale of consumption made it necessary to tax alcohol as a substitute for petrol.

Mr. Acland: As this activity is so clearly growing, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it should not be subject to a tax in the Budget next year?

Sir J. Simon: I am, of course, ready to consider the matter.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered a resolution submitted by the Old Age Pensioners' League, calling attention to the hardship endured by pensioners on account of the increased cost of living; and whether any action is to be taken by the Government in the direction of increased pensions?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my speech on the Motion for the Adjournment on the 6th of this month.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware of the very deep feeling that exists throughout the country on this question? Does he not recognise that it is an outrage that some consideration is not given to old age pensioners, and will he not recommend the Government to do something in the matter?

COLLIERY ACCIDENT, ROTHERHAM.

Mr. E. Dunn: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give any further information regarding the accident which occurred yesterday at the Kilnhurst Colliery, near Rotherham, when one man was killed and 17 injured?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I regret to inform the House that a serious accident occurred at the No. 2 Shaft at Kilnhurst Colliery at 2.45 p.m. yesterday. The shaft is about 660 yards deep. At the time of the accident the day and the afternoon shifts were changing over and 24 men were being raised in one of the cages and 18 lowered in the other. The cages were overwound. The upgoing cage was detached and safely held but the down-going cage struck the bottom of the shaft. One of the men in it was killed, 16 suffered fractured legs and are in hospital and the remaining man escaped with a shock. Inquiries into the cause of the accident are now proceeding. The House will join with me in expressing our deep sympathy with those who have been bereaved and those who are suffering as a result of this lamentable accident.

BARBADOS (DISTURBANCES).

Mr. Kelly: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the disturbances in Barbados?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Marquess of Hartington): On 23rd July an agitator who had been fined by the courts for making a false declaration led about 50 sympathisers towards Government House. When halted by the police they declined to disperse. The leader and 12 others were arrested without difficulty or struggle. On 26th and 27th July disorders occurred in and near Bridgetown. The police were compelled on several occasions to open fire on the crowd, which declined to disperse and continued to throw stones and fire revolvers after the Riot Act had been read. Two rioters were killed and several injured, three critically. The volunteers were called out. On 28th July there were some further disturbances at Bridgetown and reports of sporadic looting of shops in country districts. His Majesty's Ship "Apollo" arrived at Bridgetown on 28th July and has landed a platoon of marines. The Governor states that the disturbances were unexpected and that no clear cause can at present be assigned, though the immediate occasion was the deportation of the agitator to whom I have referred.

Mr. Kelly: Has the Noble Lord any information as to whether the origin of this, despite the answer he has just given, was the wages question?

Marquess of Hartington: My information is that that is not so. I have given the hon. Member all the information I have.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make with regard to the situation in China?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): According to my information, fighting, accompanied by artillery fire and aerial bombing of varying intensity, continued all day yesterday round Peking, mainly to the south and west. Japanese aeroplanes were active outside the city. One machine flew several times over the city distributing propaganda leaflets but dropping no bombs.
The withdrawal of foreign nationals into the Legation quarter started early in the morning and proceeded satisfactorily all day, although the greater part of the city was barricaded and circulation became increasingly difficult as the day went on. The majority of British subjects elected to avail themselves of the opportunity to shelter in the Legation quarter, and most of them are now billeted in the British Embassy quarters. So far as I know, the only casualty up to the present among non-Chinese troops in Peking has been an American marine, who was wounded by some Chinese soldiers who fired at a party of marines on duty collecting their nationals. General Sung Che-yuan has been asked to issue strict orders to Chinese military and police to ensure the safety of the persons and property of foreign nationals inside the city. According to Press messages, the city has now been evacuated by the 37th Division, but I have no confirmation of this.
As I have previously informed the House, on my instructions His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Tokyo has made representations to the Japanese Government regarding the safety of British subjects in Peking, and, as a result, I understand that the Japanese Government and the local Japanese military authorities have given certain assurances in this


respect. His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has also emphasised to the Japanese Government the serious nature of the situation and the grave dangers inherent in it. I would add that His Majesty's Government are continuing to maintain close touch at every stage with the United States Government and the other Governments concerned.

Mr. Attlee: In view of the ominous parallel with what occurred in Manchuria, and the fact that these events seem to be taking much the same course, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is proposed to take any steps with regard to the League of Nations, and whether any appeal has been made by the Chinese Government to the League?

Mr. Eden: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the seriousness of the situation. As far as I am aware, no Government has asked for this matter to be referred to the League and, as I explained to the House yesterday, in view of the special circumstances and the fact that neither Japan nor the United States are members of the League, we are not prepared ourselves to take at present any initiative in the matter.

Mr. Attlee: Does this mean that the League is powerless to act if any League Member suffers aggression from a Power outside the League, and is equally powerless to act if the aggression comes from a Power which is within the League?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that a fair deduction to make from my statement, but I think the House and the right hon. Gentleman also will appreciate that in this Far Eastern situation there are exceptional circumstances. Indeed, a representative of the party opposite the other day emphasised the need for close touch with the United States Government which is not a member of the League.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman bearing in mind the fact that under Article 17 there is mandatory provision for bringing non-members into a dispute of this kind?

Mr. Eden: I am very well aware of that fact.

Mr. Mander: Then why not do so?

Mr. Eden: That would depend largely on the co-operation of the non-members.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the absence from his reply of any reference to Tientsin means that there is no truth in the report, now current, of the shelling of that city?

Mr. Eden: I have been trying to get confirmation before I came to the House, but I have been unable to do so. I am afraid it does not follow from that, however, that it has not occurred.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman made it clear to the Japanese Government that His Majesty's Government would not approve of a further attempt to detach provinces from the Nanking sovereignty.

Mr. Eden: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see from my answers during the last few days and the various declarations we have made that we very much regret the situation, the more so because we hoped for an improvement in Far Eastern relations generally, which cannot take place while the present conditions persist.

Mr. Riley: Have His Majesty's Government consulted with the French Government in connection with a possible reference to the League?

Mr. Eden: I have been in constant touch with the French Government, but they have never suggested to me, nor I to them, that the moment is ripe for such action.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Surely it is the duty of the Chinese Government who are members of the League to make an appeal to the League, if any appeal is to be made at all?

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Is there any reason to suppose that the United States would object to such a reference to the League?

Mr. Eden: I do not know of any.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are any arrangements in hand for the evacuation of British nationals from Peking, in case that step becomes advisable at very short notice?

Mr. Eden: There are a number of local schemes, but I am afraid I do not carry


the details in my head. The last information which I had just as I came into the House, was that the local situation in Peking itself was better.

Mr. Mander: Has any consideration been given to the alternative of calling a meeting of the signatories to the Paris Pact or the Nine-Power Treaty?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, consideration has been given to all those matters.

Mr. Attlee: I wish to give notice to the right hon. Gentleman that, in addition to asking certain questions with regard to Spain, I shall also ask questions with regard to China on the Motion for the Adjournment to-morrow.

MILK AND PIGS (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the future policy of the Government in relation to milk and to the pig and bacon industry?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The Government have prepared proposals in relation to milk, but they are of too long and detailed a character to be announced in an oral reply. They have, therefore, been set out in a White Paper, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office at the end of Questions. As regards pigs and bacon, the Government have given careful consideration to the difficulties of the bacon industry which appear to be attributable, in part, to the increase of pig-feeding costs and, in part, to the high costs of bacon manufacture in this country. They believe that if the industry were founded on a small number of efficient factories provided with adequate and regular supplies of pigs of good quality and conformation, sufficient economies could be secured in the cost of curing to enable the industry to be maintained during periods of high feeding costs. The Government accordingly would be willing to propose that some assistance should be accorded to the industry over a sufficient period to enable the contract system for the supply of bacon pigs to be re-established if they were assured that the reorganisation of the bacon factories would so proceed as to hold promise of a reduction in curing costs which would enable

both producers and curers to work at a profit. The Government desire to give further consideration, in consultation with the industry, to the nature of the changes that would be required and the form which they should take, with a view to laying detailed proposals before Parliament as early as possible. Meanwhile the present arrangements for the regulation of imports will continue in force.

Major Dower: Can the Minister hold out any hope of any proposals being brought in with regard to poultry in the near future?

Mr. Morrison: The whole question of poultry is also under the consideration of the Government, and I hope to be able to make some statement on it at the earliest date possible.

Mr. Alexander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the milk proposals to which he has not referred in detail, will require legislation or the approval of the House, and, if so, when is it proposed to submit them to the House?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir; the proposals set out in the White Paper will require legislation, and the Government will take the earliest opportunity of proposing to the House the necessary measures to give effect to them.

Mr. Gallacher: In his original answer the Minister inferred that the small men would have to be wiped out in the bacon industry and the more efficient factories developed. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the poultry industry they are practically all small men, and that that industry must receive separate consideration?

Mr. Morrison: The two instances are not at all parallel. I have said already that the Government will consider, and have been considering, the poultry industry, and that a statement will be made as soon as possible. With regard to the small bacon factories, the only desire of the Government is to relieve producers and consumers from the cost of inefficient bacon-curing factories.

Mr. Acland: Arising out of the bacon proposals, can the Minister give an assurance that any assistance will be made conditional on a real, serious effort to produce standard grades of British bacon to compete with the graded Danish bacon imported from abroad?

Mr. Morrison: The desire of the Government is to induce such reorganisation of the curing industry as will enable the British bacon industry to compete with any other source of supply.

Mr. Maxton: How much money is it estimated will be spent on this scheme?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say that at the moment.

Miss Wilkinson: What will the Government or the country get in return for this subsidy; and will the Minister have any control over these factories?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Lady may rest assured that no financial assistance will be given without adequate control by the Government and by this House.

Mr. Mathers: When the right hon. Gentleman says that there may be an early intimation with regard to poultry policy, does he mean that such a statement will possibly come before October?

Mr. Morrison: I do not anticipate being able to make a statement before the House reassembles.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 84.

Division No. 322.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Patrick, C. M.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peat, C. U.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Petherick, M.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Pilkington, R.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gritten, W. C. Howard
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Blair, Sir R.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Procter, Major H. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Purbrick, R.


Boulton, W. W.
Guy, J. C. M.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hartington, Marquess of
Rankin, Sir R.


Bull, B. B.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Butler, R. A.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reid,W. Allan (Derby)


Cary, R. A.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ramer, J. R.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Channon, H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Keeling, E. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Savory, Sir Servington


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Critchley, A.
Liddall, W. S.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cross, R. H.
Lloyd, G. W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Davidson, Viscountess
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lyons, A. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


De Chair, S. S.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


De la Bère, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Storey, S.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
McKie, J. H.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Eastwood, J. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mander, G. le M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Elmley, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tate, Mavis C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Markham, S. F.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Entwistle, Sir C. F
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Touche, G. C.


Everard, W. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Furness, S. N.
Moreing, A. C.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wakefield, W. W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Munro, P.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)




Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wells, S. R.
Wise, A. R.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain Waterhouse.


White, H. Graham
Womersley, Sir W. J.



Williams, C. (Torquay)






NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Potts, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Ridley, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sanders, W. S.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Frankel, D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Gallacher, W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardner, B. W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.

Finance Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Orders of the Day — DOMINION AFFAIRS.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I wish to utilise the opportunity given by the Third Reading of this Bill to discuss certain matters affecting the British Dominions overseas. The subject covers a very wide range of matters, and it would be possible, were I so minded, to take up a great deal of time and go through a very large quantity of detail. I am sure that that would be undesirable, and I propose instead to make a general survey and to deal with the matters involved in broad outline. No doubt other right hon. and hon. Members will want to discuss those matters more fully. If I keep my speech very short that will give more opportunity to others to take part in the discussion; but I hope that if I do that for the convenience of the House it will not be charged against me that I am in any way perfunctory regarding these large matters about which we are all so deeply concerned.
The first question which the House has long awaited an opportunity of discussing is the Imperial Conference which took place this year immediately after the Coronation ceremonies. I do not want to speak disrespectfully of the gathering of such eminent statesmen on that occasion. I have no doubt that many valuable consequences followed from the personal contacts which were obtained through the meeting of that Conference. Yet I scarcely think that there will be any serious disagreement with the statement that the Conference was for the most part a marking-time Conference, and that so far as concrete results arising from it are concerned, they were exiguous. There were no decisions of any outstanding importance, no far-reaching conclusions reached on world problems, no approach to a settlement of the questions between our common British race and the larger world interests, and nothing on questions between the white people of our

race and coloured subjects. In fact in general the Conference did not produce any results that will make it live in the annals of the British Empire.
As I said just now, it arrived at no valuable results with regard to the relations of the white and the coloured races. Shortly after the Conference was over, when General Hertzog returned home, he made certain observations, to the subject matter of which I shall refer later, with regard to the South African protectorates. It is quite clear that neither the Conference itself nor the personal conversations which I understand the Secretary of State for the Dominions had with the Prime Minister of the South African Union, convinced that gentleman that the subject was settled for the moment in any decisive fashion. One of the criticisms of the Imperial Conference, therefore, is not so much for its sins of commission as for its sins of omission and for what it has failed to do.
The first question of supreme importance is the increase of world trade, and I notice that that question was raised on more than one occasion by several statesmen who came to take part in the Conference. It was spoken of by Mr. Mackenzie King, there was a reference to it by Mr. Lyons, and I have no doubt there were private conversations resulting from the views of those right hon. Gentlemen, but nothing of importance emerged, so far as I can see, along those lines. I do not want to take up the time of the House by discussing the question of the Ottawa Agreements—we have had other opportunities for doing that—but it is of prime importance that these questions of internal and Imperial trade should not block out from our vision the much larger question of the necessity for a world advance and for freeing the world from economic barriers between the different countries.
The answer of the Government so far has been that they have empowered M. Van Zeeland to make inquiries with a view to seeing what can be done in breaking down trade barriers between the nations of the world. So far, so good, but we in this House know quite well that there are many inquiries which take place that are used, not for the purpose of really promoting the question at issue, but for procrastinating and preventing a decision being reached. The first question, therefore, that I want to put to the


right hon. Gentleman is this: Is the mission of M. Van Zeeland a cloak for inaction, or is it a spearhead for a new drive for a world advance? If he says the latter, then we shall want to know at an early date in what direction the investigations of M. Van Zeeland are going to bear fruit, in order that some really deep change may take place in the cramping of international trade which has been steadily going on for several years past.
The next question which arises is the matter of the League of Nations. From what I can see of the speeches of the statesmen who came here, they were very insistent that the League of Nations should not fade out of the purview of the Government in their dealings with international affairs, and there were several speeches which showed quite clearly how keenly they felt on the matter. In fact, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that many of them took much more the view which is taken by Members on this side of the House, and perhaps by some Members in other parts of the House, than the view which His Majesty's Government are tending to take towards the League. Neither do I think it is any exaggeration to say that the only foreign policy which can really unite this country and the Governments of all the Dominions is the policy of collective security. Without that central guiding feature, the foreign policy of the various parts of the British Empire tends to fall into disunity, but if that essential factor of collective security forms the basis of our attitude towards these matters, then, and then only, I believe, can the Governments of the various Dominions unite with the Government of this country in prosecuting a harmonious and common foreign policy. We shall look to the right hon. Gentleman to-night to tell us whether the views of the Dominions on this matter are really reflected, or will be more reflected in the future in our Government than they have been in the past.
I come further to the question of the attitude that was taken by Mr. Savage, the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Of course, I am not going to dilate in general on those points on which his Government is in line with the views of the party for which I speak, but there is a matter, I believe, which is of general significance to which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman should pay attention. Mr. Savage holds—and I think he has explained it

on many occasions here, and probably he explained it inside the Imperial Conference—that as he sees it there can be no real increase of world trade of an effective character unless the standard of life of the people in each country be raised, and within his own Dominion Mr. Savage and his Government have worked insistently to raise the spending power of his own people. I believe that even up to the present considerable progress has been made in that direction, and I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman and upon the Government that they should realise that the increase of the standard of life and of the spending power of our own people, is the biggest contribution that we in this country can make, not only to our own development and the development of the British Empire, but to the development and improvement of the relations of world trade and of the world in general.
Having dealt with the Imperial Conference I am brought now to the question of Newfoundland, and I am brought there by the last words that I used with regard to Mr. Savage, because it is quite clear that the position in Newfoundland at the present time is very far from satisfactory. I think that even the right hon. Gentleman will not disagree with that. When the commission that the Government appointed first went to that country there were considerable hopes that something was going to be done, and the people were willing to wait and to give this new commission an opportunity to see what it could do. In the first year there were signs that some progress was being made, and even in the second year there was a hope that something would result, but with the third year and with the failure to achieve anything really effective, the people of the Dominion of Newfoundland are becoming profoundly dissatisfied.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will attempt to answer me by saying that the Budgetary position is better, but the Budgetary position is not the final criterion of advance in that unfortunate country. The prosperity of the people is the only ultimate criterion, and, so far as I can learn, there is no sign whatever that the position of the people of Newfoundland has really substantially improved as compared with what it was three years ago. The poverty of the people is appalling, the conditions there


are a disgrace to the British Empire, and what we want to know is whether this commission has been appointed for the purpose of improving the value of the holdings of certain financial houses and of vested interests that are concerned with Newfoundland, or whether it is doing the much larger, perhaps more difficult, but far more important task of really restoring some measure of prosperity to a country which has been suffering most grievously during recent years. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that from the point of view of the people of that country the situation at present is regarded as desperate. While at first they were willing and anxious that something should be done by this country as against the Government which they had before, they are now taking a different view, and there is a very large measure of feeling arising there that King Stork is worse than King Log.
Another matter arising directly out of the Imperial Conference—and again a sin of omission—is the failure of the Government to deal adequately with the question of nationality, and in particular with the question of the nationality of married women. I remember Debates in this House on this subject when I first came here 14 years ago. It was not very long after the termination of the War, and there was a very large number of Members of this House who realised how exceedingly unsatisfactory were our laws with regard to the nationality of married women, owing to their experience as members of the legal profession, of cases of British women who had married German and other foreign husbands. It was felt at that time, and there was a very wide expression of it in this House, that it was entirely unsatisfactory that a British woman who married a foreigner, but whose thought was for the interests of the land of her nativity, should be treated as an alien because she had married a foreigner, whereas some wholly undesirable foreign woman, because she had gone through a process of marriage with a British citizen, was regarded as a British national and freed from the investigation which was desirable in the case of a person with strong foreign leanings whose interests were not connected with this country at all.
At that time the Government took the view that we should not be pioneers in

this country, and that if we were to try to do that, we should have difficulties in two ways. First of all, inside the British Empire, we should be putting our laws in a different position from those in other parts of the British Empire, and, in the second place, we should come to loggerheads with foreign countries where the old laws with regard to the nationality of married women prevailed. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridges in this connection since I first came into this House. In the first place, we have had a great change in the American law, and also changes in the laws of some of our Dominions, but, as far as I can gather, the British Government are still standing pat on this important matter. Surely it is now time that the British Government were prepared to take a bold step and to take the action which other important countries inside and outside the British Empire are taking, to give to women a status because of themselves and not because of the real or artificial unions which they may form with persons of another nationality.
I pass to another question, which is also closely related to the Imperial Conference and that is the matter of Ireland, because the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, will not forget that the Irish Government were not represented there. This quarrel between this country and Ireland, or, should I say, between the Government of this country and the Government of the Irish Free State, still continues. It has often seemed to me that the quarrel is like a quarrel between a husband and a wife. The Government of this country may be able to prove conclusively that they have been logically correct all through and that all the fault is on the side of our Irish neighbours, but the fact that they can prove that to their own satisfaction is completely unavailing. It is no good for the husband to show his wife that he has been above reproach and that everything has been correct. It does not heal the quarrel and does not enable them to live happily ever after. It only creates further trouble and difficulty. The real fact is that the Government and the right hon. Gentleman have to get above that kind of husband-like attitude and have to take a sensible, sound line to try to heal the breach.
I am not going over again all the old ground of how this quarrel arose. It did not arise some half a dozen years ago


when the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman came into conflict with the Government of the Irish Free State. If you want the origin of this quarrel, you have to go back centuries and take into account all the wrongs that have been done—I will not say by one side, although a great many have been admittedly done by Governments of this country in times past, but by both sides. It will be no good trying to rake up any particular point and saying that we ought to stick to some plan that is vital. What is needed is a real token of reconciliation. The right hon. Gentleman is a young man if he will permit me to say so, and he comes into this office with his future to make, I am sure, with the good wishes of all sides in the House. Nothing will redound more to his credit in future years than if he can heal this centuries old breach between the people of this island and the people of the island on the other side of the Irish Sea. It is not a matter of legal arguments or of formal rights and contracts, and all the rest of it. It is a matter of good will. Individually as between Englishmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen there are always the most friendly feelings, but there persists this vendetta between the Governments of the two countries and it will ruin the relations of both if it is allowed to go on. One of the Members of the Government—the Foreign Secretary, I think—said recently that he did not know any English word for what is known abroad as a vendetta, but whether we have that word or not, it remains true that between the Government of this country and the Government of Ireland there has been something in the nature of a vendetta for a very long time. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that at the outset of his career in this important office he cannot do anything better than by generous action and by a gesture help to bring this vendetta finally to an end.
I will pass to another question of a wide and far-reaching character which concerns the right hon. Gentleman's office. I refer to the large issues of the natives in Africa. There are the questions of the Rhodesias and of the Protectorates. Southern Rhodesia, being a Dominion, though not with the full rights of some of the Dominions, is the special province of the right hon. Gentleman. Northern Rhodesia, which is, of course, strictly a colony, is the province of his colleague the Secretary of State for the

Colonies. Therefore, one of the main questions which is exercising the minds of people of Northern and Southern Rhodesia is the joint ground of the two right hon. Gentlemen. I refer to the question of whether there should be at an early date an amalgamation of the two Rhodesias under a common government. In 1931 a declaration was made which had the approval of all parties in this House that the time then had not come for this amalgamation. I venture to suggest, and I think I shall have a large measure of support for my view that the time which had not come then has certainly not arrived now. The main reason is that the development of Northern Rhodesia has certainly not proceeded sufficiently far to justify any such change. There is a great deal yet to be done before there can be any real justification for joining Northern and Southern Rhodesia in a common Dominion Government.
There are one or two other matters relating to Southern Rhodesia which I ought not to pass by in silence. The British Government in this country possesses the right of non-allowance of certain Dominion legislation in Southern Rhodesia, this being legislation which affects the interests of the natives. There has been agitation inside the Dominion to get rid of that restriction which is imposed on their freedom of action. I am not saying that the time may not come when that will be justified, but I desire with all the force I have—and I am sure I am supported by my colleagues—to press on the right hon. Gentleman that the time has certainly not come now. It has not come because we are not at all satisfied with what is going on. It is not so much a matter of criticism of the Southern Rhodesian Government, but the whole question of native policy is in flux at the present time. Therefore, I think it would be undesirable for the right hon. Gentleman to make that change. I would urge him to use his power with great discretion but, still, not to abrogate his power, either directly or inferentially, by allowing legislation in that country which is contrary to the spirit which this House and Governments of all parties have consistently shown to the question of the natives in Africa.
Some of the pass and registration laws have given rise to a great deal of discussion and results have arisen which are


most undesirable. We have, for instance, native doctors going out to attend their patients, and they are confronted either with leaving their patients to suffer or with breaking one of the laws of the country with regard to passes. That, of course, only affects a very few persons. But I saw the figures the other day—and I hesitate to reproduce them in the House, for they are almost astronomical in magnitude—of the number of persons who have been arrested and, I think, imprisoned for offences against the pass laws. They run into five figures for a single year. It is a serious thing if people are brought into contact with difficulties and get into trouble with the law because of what are technical offences. I agree that the subject is a difficult one, but it is one which the right hon. Gentleman should take carefully into account
With regard to the Protectorates what I have to say in the first place also affects Northern Rhodesia. I refer to the question of migration. The policy which has prevailed, both in the Protectorates and in Northern Rhodesia has not only allowed and encouraged, but has compelled, a large proportion of the adult male population to go out to work away from their colony. It must be evident that if a large proportion of the native male population are driven by economic circumstances to leave their homes, a great strain is placed on the tribal system. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to take steps, so far as it comes within his purview, to prevent this excessive migration taking place in future.
There are two general matters which the right hon. Gentleman has to watch. The first is a negative one. He has given grounds for thinking that he is watching it. I refer to the desire of the South African Union to induce His Majesty's Government to hand over the Protectorates to it at an early date. The pledges of Governments in the past have been clear in this matter; the first is, that it should not be done without the consultation of the natives concerned, and the second that the previous approval of this House should be obtained. I will not press the right hon. Gentleman too hard for the precise meaning of the word "consultation," because I think it is clear that it would be a travesty of the idea of consultation if it were suggested that it merely meant that you ask the natives, and that

when they with a tremendous voice are against any particular proposal, you say that your duty has been fulfilled by consulting them and that now you are going to do the thing with which they expressly disagree. Although the right hon. Gentleman in the past has refused to qualify the word "consultation," I assume we may take it that if there is a strong feeling in the Protectorates against being handed over to the Union, that feeling will be respected. That is the negative duty of the right hon. Gentleman.
But he has also a positive duty in the need for a development of these Protectorates on a much broader scale than has gone on in times past. We need to see that these countries, which are a trust of the British Government, are not allowed to go from bad to worse economically. The Government must bestir themselves to see that they are really developed, and developed in a way which is justified by modern conditions. They will need a certain amount of financial assistance, and they will need advice, control and help in their marketing arrangements. I think it will be found that that can best be done if their resources are developed on a communal or co-operative basis. I am not using the words in the sense which is a red rag to a bull to many hon. Gentlemen opposite; I mean them in the larger sense of the co-operation of tribal people who are used to operating together for their common interests. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do everything in his power to promote that development. I cannot say that I think it has taken place up to now. There have been certain small efforts, but they have not been comprehensive enough or vigorous enough, and I certainly do not think they have succeeded in lifting the people of the Protectorates from their poor economic position into a position which can win the respect of the other parts of South Africa for British rule in those Protectorates.
I cannot conclude what I have to say without putting in a few words of a rather more general character with regard to the whole problem of the white and black races in Africa, and in particular in the southern part of that great Continent. I beg of the Government not to take a short view of this important question. When the history of the world comes to be written in years to come I do not think the white races will feel very proud of the


chapters dealing with the treatment of the black races in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We cannot unwrite those chapters, but in the twentieth century it is for us to write something which our descendants can be proud of in years to come. I think it is recognised in this House that there is a certain conflict of ideas between our brothers and cousins in South Africa and ourselves here. I shall certainly not say anything on this matter which would aggravate that difference or estrange our kindred from us, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the South African view is regarded with some suspicion in this country and that South Africa looks upon our view as academic and sentimental.
The South African policy boils down to this: segregation of the native when he is at home, and making him a beast of burden when he is taken from his home to work in those parts of Africa where he is only an immigrant. With regard to that policy I will only say that political considerations in South Africa make genuine segregation, with adequate land, unworked, if not unworkable, and I do not believe that we can keep the South African native a mere beast of burden for ever. Our policy is trusteeship in theory, but I am not at all sure that it is not stagnation in practice. The neglect of these Protectorates has been an outstanding disgrace to this country and not worthy of the great British Empire. This is not merely a question of to-day or of 10 or 20 years hence, but a question of 50 or 100 years hence, and it is one of supreme importance. Hon. Members in this House and men and women outside may regret that the black race was ever brought into contact with the white race, and may wish that the black race had remained sheltered and shut off. Whether that view is sound or not I do not know; but we cannot go back on what has happened. There are no means of putting the chicken back into the egg.
For better or worse the black man has come into contact with the white man and has to that extent discarded his old civilisation, and we cannot reimpose upon him his old tribal customs. We cannot refuse him the education which modern civilisation makes possible. We cannot deny to the black race the prospects of advancement, and we must provide opportunities for this great Bantu people to share in the advance of civilisation.

If we fail to do that, if we think we can keep the black man permanently as a beast of burden for the white man, we shall build up a sense of injustice of immense magnitude, and one day that sense of injustice will burst out and will engulf Africa in a conflict the end of which none of us can foresee.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I desire to take the opportunity of saying a word, first, about the great importance and value of the Conference of the Empire Parliamentary Association attended by delegates from the legislatures of the Empire, which was held in Westminster Hall in the weeks preceding the Coronation and preceding the Imperial Conference itself. I believe it was the first time there has been such a juxtaposition of the two bodies, the unofficial body meeting just before the official body, and I think it was of great advantage. The unofficial conference dealt with very much the same subjects as the other, although in an unofficial manner. The Ministers who attended the latter conference were present, and at the Empire Parliamentary Conference we had the advantage of the presence not only of the supporters of the Government but of the Opposition, and every point of view in the Dominion legislatures was represented, so that the Ministers were able to go on later to the Imperial Conference with a full knowledge of the general attitude of the legislatures of the Dominions towards the important questions which were to be discussed.
It is interesting to note who were actually present at the Empire Parliamentary Conference, because there was from every country a statesman who was also attending the Imperial Conference. Quite a number of British Ministers took part in the proceedings—the present Prime Minister, the present Home Secretary, the Dominions Secretary and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. For Canada there was the Hon. E. Lapointe, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, leader of the Delegation and delegate to the Imperial Conference. For Australia there was the Hon. Sir R. Archdale Parkhill, Minister for Defence, leader of the Delegation and delegate to the Imperial Conference. For New Zealand there was the Hon. Walter Nash, Minister of Finance, delegate to the Imperial Conference. For the Union


of South Africa there was Senator the Hon. C. F. Clarkson, Minister of Posts, Telegraphs and Public Works, leader of the Delegation and delegate to the Imperial Conference. As representing the Indian Central Legislature there was the Hon. Sir Muhammud Zafrullah Kahn, member for railways and commerce in the Viceroy's Council, and delegate to the Imperial Conference. We also had the great advantage at the earlier conference of the presence of the Prime Ministers of all the State Parliaments of Australia, which was of great importance in view of the powers they exercise over immigration. Further, it is interesting to note that although the Irish Free State was not represented at the Imperial Conference, the Empire Parliamentary Association can congratulate itself on having brought in, unofficially at any rate, the Irish Free State, because no fewer than three representatives were present. I think this Conference, organised so ably and successfully by Sir Howard d'Egville, was a gathering of real importance and usefulness, and has set a precedent which should be followed at future gatherings of the Imperial Conference.
I desire now to turn to the Report of the Imperial Conference and to statements there made on foreign affairs. One cannot help seeing that the proceedings were profoundly influenced, as they were bound to be, by the attitude and policy of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain. It is not possible for the Dominion Governments, any more than for the Governments of foreign States, to take up an attitude in foreign policy different from that of the Government of Great Britain, or where there is no leadership from the Government of this country. I can trace in the report of the proceedings the same tendency which one has noticed for some years past in the policy of the Government to serve the League of Nations with their lips but not with their lives—a tendency for the loosening of our obligations, a tendency towards an interpretation of them which seems to let us out from what was previously understood to be our contracts, and in particular a loosening of our obligations under Article 16. As an example of what I mean I quote the following passage from page 14 of the report:
In their view,"—

that is the view of the Imperial Conference—
the settlement of differences that may arise between nations and the adjustment of national needs should be sought by methods of co-operation and joint inquiry and conciliation. It is in such methods, and not in recourse to the use of force between nation and nation, that the surest guarantee will be found for the improvement of international relations and respect for mutual obligations.
We all agree about the general tendency towards conciliation, but unless we are prepared to have in the background the machinery of force all efforts at conciliation will, in the long run, prove to be futile. On page 15 they are found declaring that their respective armaments:
will never be used for purposes of aggression or any purposes inconsistent with the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Pact of Paris.
We all agree with that, but what we want to know, and what the whole world wants to know, is whether those same armaments are in the affirmative going to be used in accordance with League obligations in resistance to an aggressor wherever he may arise, and particularly in Europe? That is an unanswered question which is keeping the whole world in a state of uncertainty. I was interested and gratified, to some extent, by a footnote to page 14 which said:
It was understood and agreed that nothing in this statement should be held to diminish the right of His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, and the Government of India, to advocate and support their statements of policy as submitted to the Assembly of the League of Nations in September, 1936.
It is interesting to recall what those words mean. I shall quote a few of the paragraphs of the statement of policy sent in by the New Zealand Government. There were 21 paragraphs, but I shall read only a few, though they are very important and I think they will bear reading in this House and reproduction outside. They say there:
We are prepared"—
this is a Dominion Government speaking—
to take our collective share in the application against any future aggressor, of the full economic sanctions contemplated to Article 16, and we are prepared, to the extent of our power, to join in the collective application of force against any future aggressor.


Would that it were Great Britain from whom those words had come. In paragraph 7, they said:
We believe that the sanctions contemplated by the present Covenant will be ineffective in the future as they have been in the past unless they are made immediate and automatic, unless economic sanctions take the form of the complete boycott contemplated by Article 16, and unless any sections that may be applied are supported by the certainty that the Members of the League applying the sanctions are able and, if necessary, prepared to use force against force.
Number 8 of New Zealand's proposals was:
It is our belief that the Covenant as it is, or in a strengthened form, would in itself be sufficient to prevent war if the world realised that the nations undertaking to apply the Covenant actually would do so in fact.
The last paragraph 1 shall read is paragraph 9, which says:
We are prepared to agree to the institution of an international force under the control of the League or to the allocation to the League of a definite proportion of the armed forces of its Members to the extent, if desired, of the whole of those forces—land, sea and air.
It is very refreshing to find a member of the British Commonwealth and of the League of Nations using realistic, firm, courageous language of that kind, and I hope that New Zealand has given a lead which will be followed by the other units in general and by the British Government in particular. There is an interesting passage on page 16 at the end of the Report of the Foreign Affairs Section of the Summary of Proceedings. It says:
Finally the Members of the Conference, while themselves firmly attached to the principles of democracy and to parliamentary forms of Government, decided to register their view that differences of political creed should be no obstacle to friendly relations between Governments and countries, and that nothing would be more damaging to the hopes of international appeasement than the division, real or apparent, of the world into opposing groups.
Naturally we are all in agreement with that, but the point surely is not what is the internal policy or structure of the countries of the world, but what is their foreign policy. Where you have a dictatorship' country with a foreign policy of peace and conciliation, there is no difficulty in co-operating with it, but where you have a dictatorship State, as you do, whose foreign policy is one of non-cooperation and of using power and force

to obtain their own wishes regardless of the will of the rest of mankind, I think it is true to say that there is an obstacle to friendly relations between those Governments and other countries.
I would venture to call attention to another aspect of the matter, referred to on the pages dealing with Defence. I cannot help regretting that while very great attention was very properly paid to the question of close co-operation between the Defence forces of different parts of the Empire and the action they might have to take in common in certain eventualities, no attention was apparently paid to the further obligation for joint action which, as members of the British Commonwealth, they share with other members of the League of Nations. I would quote one passage from page 20 of the report, where there is a reference to
a common system of organisation and training.
It declares:
each of them would thus be enabled to ensure more effectively its own security and, if it be so desired, to co-operate with other countries of the Commonwealth with the least possible delay.
I think the further subject which should have been considered was the possibility of co-operating effectively not only with other members of the Commonwealth but with other members of the League of Nations. If you are to make the collective system a reality something of that kind is absolutely essential; otherwise the whole idea is a mockery.
I believe that the British Government at the present time have, not in terms but in practice, wholly abandoned any idea of relying upon the collective system of the League of Nations. I am rather surprised to learn from a question which was put the other day that the Government did not think it worth while to draw the attention of the Dominions to the situation that has arisen in Spain and the grave dangers that might come out of a threat to our Imperial communications. I asked whether this subject has been upon the agenda and discussed, and I was told "No." I asked whether it was not an important question, and the reply was: "Surely it may be left to the Dominions to bring up any matter to which they attach importance." We are not concerned here with the Dominions but with the British Government, and I


say that it is the duty of the British Government in a matter of vital importance to the British Empire to bring it up themselves and to explain the situation to the Dominions, and to take them into consultation as to the best way of dealing with it. I very much regret that there has, from this report, been a tendency towards failure to rally to the collective system. I entirely agree that the future of the British Empire depends upon the continued existence of the League of Nations in an effective form. It is the one rallying point which can keep us all together. If it is now allowed to fade out of the picture and disappear I believe it will be impossible to maintain in existence that magnificent structure, the British Empire, as one of the examples of the British genius for self-government.
What are some of the things that we have done as example to the world in respect of peace? Between these Dominions war is absolutely unthinkable. No one ever discusses it as a possible eventuality and no expenditure ever takes place upon the provision of armaments inter se. If we were the only people in the world, no armaments would exist because we would realise that they could river be used. Judicial or conciliatory methods are always used to settle any dispute. We have further evolved this system to the point that, in the event of any attack upon the smallest island in the possession of the British Empire there would be brought into existence at once overwhelming, automatic sanctions, economic and military, on sea, land and air. No discussion whether it is a suitable case; it is done as a matter of course. That is the reason why Abyssinia was chosen when Signor Mussolini was looking round in Africa for some colony. He selected Abyssinia instead of Kenya. He took the chance that nothing would happen in the former case, because he knew that if he touched the latter something very definite would happen. There is no better working model for the League than the functioning of the British Empire itself.
I am going to make a suggestion upon the subject of the Protectorates in South Africa which, I hope, will be seriously considered. It is a difficult question, and liable to lead to misunderstanding and ill-feeling between the two Governments. Would it be practicable to consider, in due

course and at the proper time, placing the Protectorates under some form of mandate, not necessarily the form of international mandate that exists at the present time? I cannot help feeling that if the possibility of that method were explored it might be possible to create machinery to get over the difficulties existing between the two Governments at the present time.
Now a word about trade relations, which subject was also touched upon on page 21, where it states:
It had been agreed that questions arising out of the Ottawa Agreements could best be dealt with as occasion offered in separate discussions.
What a flood of light that throws on the Ottawa Conference itself. It indicates what everyone knows to be true, that the Government were not prepared to go through the gruelling process of another Ottawa Conference. They had had enough of it, and they hoped that that would be the last. They were not going to have that over again. They indicated that it was far better to have individual conferences between the different Dominions and in that way to avoid the free fighting, so to speak, that arose at Ottawa.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Ottawa Conference has had very satisfactory results, not only from our point of view but from that of the Dominions.

Mr. Mander: I am glad to know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks so. With regard to the question of economic agreements between the Empire and the nations of Europe, I hope that we may hear something of the progress of those negotiations. I understand that various Dominion Governments are prepared, so far as they can, to make the necessary adjustments, painful though they may be, to carry out such a scheme. The proposal which has recently been made by His Majesty the King of the Belgians is an interesting one and deserves careful study. One ought to think about it a little carefully, because we want to avoid the erection of some new academic machinery which would mean long conferences on economic problems and nothing definite being done. We had the experience of the economic conference which was held in 1926, when most admirable recommendations were made and nothing was done. We should not be too hasty to set up in the world a new and expensive organisation when


we have a very admirable one working in the League of Nations at the present time. I think it will be agreed that, whatever failure there has been in the League of Nations in some respects, it has done fine work for reconstruction in the world. Its financial and economic staff work has been wholly admirable and deserves every support.
In conclusion, I would say that the Imperial Conference links up with a very stirring event in our national history, the Coronation. One may look at the Coronation from many points of view; I should like to regard it not only as the Crowning of the King of this country and the Dominions, but as the Crowning of the King of seven independent State Members of the League of Nations. I hope that we shall in due course be able to feel the same emotional loyalty towards the head of not only this seven but of all 58 members of the League, and surround them and him completely with some appropriate symbolism. When we have reached that stage—we have a long way to go—peace will reign throughout the world as securely as it reigns in the British Empire at the present time.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Edward Grigg: I am very glad that an occasion has been found to enable the House to discuss the report of the Imperial Conference before the Summer Adjournment. At the present moment the Prime Ministers of the various Dominions either have reported, or are reporting, or are about to report, to their various Parliaments on what took place here, and I think it would not have been at all desirable that we should have broken up without discussing the proceedings and the report of the Conference and showing that we appreciate the work that it did. I am bound to say that, when I first read the report, I felt very much as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) felt. I felt that it was not a very impressive report, that it showed a certain shyness about realities, and that it was marked by no important resolutions or decisions of any kind. On reflection, however, I very much modified that view. My present feeling is that the Conference was on the whole an extremely satisfactory and encouraging Conference, and I think it is important that we should not depreciate its work in this country at the present time.
In the first place, of course, one must realise that the Conference dealt with some very delicate matters in regard to defence and in regard to foreign policy, and that, while the Report may be exceedingly reticent on these matters, it is quite reasonable to assume that the discussions in the Conference itself went much nearer to reality than the Report would suggest, and were robust in every way. Indeed, if certain reports which have leaked out are true, there was a quality about many of the discussions in the Conference which we should all welcome and approve. Personally, I am all for plain speaking in these conferences. In that connection I might perhaps say a word with regard to what was said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) about the example of New Zealand. I very much appreciate the line that was taken by the New Zealand Government, but one really has to reflect that the contribution made by New Zealand to a policy of that kind is not so great that it can offer to give a lead to the rest of the Empire at the present time. I say that without disparagement in any way of the New Zealand people, among whom I have relations and to whom I have been devoted all my life, but it is perfectly obvious that a Government like that of New Zealand cannot set a lead in regard to foreign policy, and no one knows that better than the New Zealand Government itself.
In the second place, it is very important to realise that the Imperial Conference cannot bind Governments, and that for that reason it is probably unwise for it to arrive at very definite decisions of any kind. It exists, I think, as the Prime Minister himself said in winding up the Conference, rather for the exchange of views, and the policy which is to result from the exchange of views is a matter for the individual Governments and Parliaments of the Commonwealth. I think it is a mistake to expect binding decisions from the Imperial Conference. It is most important to emphasise the fact that Governments come to it free, that they leave it free, and that the decisions rest with the Governments and Parliaments of individual Dominions. The moment you get away from that conception of the Imperial Conference, you do a real disservice to our Imperial relations and to the Conference itself.
I think one must also realise that the Conference exists, and has existed since it first came into being, much rather to register the states of mind of the different peoples of the Empire than to elaborate policies of any kind. It has been a most invaluable barometer of the way in which opinion is moving in different parts of the Commonwealth, and we should always value it as such. The movements of opinion which make the history of the Empire are almost tidal in character, and the Governments which come to the Imperiol Conference are, after all, creatures of that opinion. All that they can do is to register the movement of opinion, and certainly never, when they are present here, go one inch beyond what opinion in their own country will support. That limitation is very strong upon them. But if the course of the Empire in any crisis that may be hanging over the world is to be accurately foreseen, I think the important thing is, not to look for results from the Imperial Conference, but rather to watch the movement of the tide throughout the Empire, and as regards that aspect I think this Conference registers a very important change in the state of mind of the Empire.
Everybody knows that the tide of Imperial unity has been ebbing pretty steadily ever since a year or two after the War. There were strains evident in the Peace Conference at Paris. The last effective action which the Empire took as a unit, with all its members acting together, was at the Washington Conference, when the agreement for the limitation of naval armaments was arrived at—a most valuable achievement, but one which was not repeated afterwards, although as a matter of fact the Dominions participated in a less effective way in the London Naval Conference of 1930. From the Washington Conference onwards, over a series of years, it is perfectly plain that the force which has shown such immense power and influence in the world elsewhere—I mean the force of nationalism, of separatist nationalism—took hold of the British Empire and reduced its power of co-operation, reduced even the interest in its existence as a unit for a considerable time. There is a preoccupation with internal status developed to a great height by two or three Dominions, and, in consequence, much

less interest in the relations of the Empire as a whole with the rest of the world. The nationalist movement of opinion came to a climax in the Conference of 1930, which laid the foundations of the Statute of Westminster. The Statute of Westminster registered the conception, the consummation of that movement. I am certainly not going to quarrel with the movement of nationalism in the British Empire. It is no good quarrelling with it; you might just as well talk disrespectfully of the Equator, or quarrel with the force of gravitation. It is one of the greatest forces in the world, and nothing in the world will arrest it.
I believe that the history of our time, both political and economic, is being made very largely by two great political forces. One of these is nationalism, and the other is equalitarianism—the desire that all mankind should have a better opportunity in the world and a larger share of the good things of life. It is no use quarrelling with nationalism in the world or in the British Commonwealth in these days. I would in any case be the last to quarrel with it, because I regard patriotism, which, after all, is nationalism in its broader and better sense, as the basis of all good citizenship, and I believe that patriotism in our country and in the British Commonwealth is essential for the maintenance of our standards, of our ideals, of our freedom, and of all our institutions. Furthermore, although nationalism, as everybody knows, is immensely dangerous when it is carried to extremes, we must recollect that we, who are at the centre of affairs and are dealing with democracies at a great distance from the nerve centres of the world, must face the fact that nationalism is never to be modified by constraint from without. We in the British Empire at least have always given nationalism full play, and our recognition of the rights of nationalism is, I believe, our greatest contribution to the organisation of human society and to the development of freedom in the world.
For all these reasons I would be the last to quarrel with the movements which have emanated from the force of nationalism in the British Empire during recent years. But it is desirable that modification should come, and that it should come from within, that is to say, from the only source from which it ever can


come effectively. I do think that at this Conference there were signs that the extremes of nationalism are being modified throughout the Commonwealth, and I think that that change is arising from a sense of the dangers of isolation which was not felt before. External pressure always tells, and external pressure is working at the present time. But I think it also arises from something more, from a growing realisation that, by combination with other nations inside the Commonwealth, every member of the Commonwealth may do more not only for its own security, but for the peace and progress of the world. I believe that that broad idea is growing upon the Commonwealth at the present time.
This Conference, I think, registers that movement. For that reason I am very glad indeed that it has happened, and I should be very sorry if we minimised its work or its results. In proof of that, I would ask the House to consider three significant signs. What has marked the ebbing of the tide of Imperial unity during the last 10 or 15 years? I should say that the first thing was the preoccupation with internal rights and internal status of which I have already spoken. I do not want to go into that. The second was a growing weakness in trade co-operation up to 1932, largely owing to the fact that this country would play no part in bringing the Empire together in matters of commerce and trade.
The third feature of these years was the determination to let the Empire become disarmed, almost without consciousness of what was going on in the rest of the world. It is an astonishing thing that, even in 1930, there should have been such a complete lack of realisation of what might be expected in the near future, with the world as it was at that date. Indeed, the 1930 Conference, at the end of its report, expressed regret that the great pressure of work in connection with inter-Imperial relations and economic questions rendered it impossible to arrange any plenary discussions on Imperial defence. The only thing that the Conference succeeded in doing was to pass a resolution in favour of discontinuing for a period of five years all expenditure on the Singapore base. That was towards the end of the summer of 1930. Look at what happened in that part of the world in 1931 and 1932. It is, therefore, worth

remembering the extent to which complete unconsciousness of the dangers that were threatening the world was carried in the Imperial Conference, and among the democracies of the Commonwealth in quite recent times.
How has the state of mind of the Empire on this question changed now, first in regard to this question of national status. I think everyone would agree that the terrible crisis regarding the succession to the Crown, through which the Empire passed only a few months ago, showed that the Statute of Westminster and the whole movement of which it was the culmination has in no way impaired the fundamental unity of our people. All the Governments were free to decide upon that matter as they pleased. There was nothing to bind them in any way. Had they decided differently, the unity of the Commonwealth would quite necessarily have been destroyed, but without prompting they took the same course and they were approved by all the people. I think the Imperial Conference has shown the effect of that movement towards unity when it came to discuss the very vital question of British citizenship and the status of a British subject. I attach enormous importance to that question, because I believe it will be found more and more that the development of the Empire will not turn upon the relations of Governments to Governments, but rather on the status of the individual and will deal with the fealty that he owes to his own local Government and the wider fealty which he owes as a British subject to His Majesty. The fealty of the individual throughout the Commonwealth to the King is the constitutional expression of what Monarchy means in the Commonwealth at present, and it is very important that the Imperial Conference used language upon this matter which was much clearer and more decisive than it used on any other subject. It says:
In the course of the discussions at the present Conference it was in no way suggested that any change should be made in the existing position regarding the common status based on the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act of the United Kingdom and the corresponding enactments in other parts of the British Commonwealth. This common status is described by the term 'British subject'. The term does not, of course, mean a subject of Great Britain. It is one of long standing as denoting generally all subjects of His Majesty to whatever part of the British Commonwealth they belong.


It is extremely important that this Conference should have registered no desire to weaken or impair that common status in any way.
I come to the second feature which has marked the ebb of the tide during recent years, and that is the failure of trade co-operation. Of course the main change in that respect was made by the Economic Conference at Ottawa in 1932. There has been criticism of the Ottawa Agreements—we heard a little of it from the Front Bench opposite a little while ago—criticism which always takes the same form. But I think one thing is clear. While it is quite proper that the discussion, extension or modification in any way of the Ottawa Agreements should now take the form of bi-lateral discussion between Governments, there is no disposition in this country or elsewhere in the Empire to weaken those agreements in any way. The agreements are there, they represent the great majority of opinion throughout the Commonwealth and they govern the situation at present. Hon. Members opposite may talk as if they wish to modify them and do away with them, but they will continue to stand. Their importance at present may be illustrated by the influence that they are bound to exert on commercial negotiations with the United States. I am all for a commercial understanding with the United States, but it must be perfectly clear that the character of that understanding will be governed by the Ottawa Agreements and by the obligations of the different parts of the Empire to each other. Fortunately, that is made perfectly clear by the character of the Ottawa Agreements themselves. Nothing can be done that is inconsistent with them. I am glad that that is the case.
I come to the third feature of the ebbing tide, and that was the blind movement towards complete disarmament. If one thing is absolutely clear in the report of this Conference, studied and moderate though its language may be, it is that the whole Empire realises the dangers of the present time. Nothing could stand out more clearly from the printed words. It would have been quite impossible in this year 1937 for the Imperial Conference to do what it did only seven years ago and say it had no time to discuss Imperial defence. The report does not say very much about the actual discussions that

took place. It could hardly do so. But is is perfectly clear that the Dominions do fully realise the importance of doing what they can in their own sphere and of making co-operation easier if their Governments and Parliaments should decide on co-operation at any time. If one thing also is clear, it is that the world has taken note of that fact. When you are inclined to minimise the importance of this Imperial Conference, do not forget that the attitude that it adopted in regard to Imperial Defence, so different from the attitude that it adopted seven years ago, has had a marked impression upon the situation in Europe at present.
So much for the achievements of the Conference. I cannot sit down, however, without expressing one very great regret. I have said that the Conference cannot bind Governments. We could not ask from it decisions of that kind. But, nevertheless, it has made declarations in some respects of a very important type. The hon. Member why preceded me referred to declarations on foreign policy. I attach particular importance to the declaration which laid down that members of the Commonwealth would not take sides, or join any particular group in the European system at present. But I regret very much that there was no resolution of that kind on the very important matter of the merchant navy and shipping. The Conference did nothing except reaffirm the Resolution of 1923, which in itself only said that the members of the Commonwealth should consult together if its commercial shipping were threatened in any way. I am astonished that, under the leadership of our Government, it should have dealt so perfunctorily with a vital question of that kind. The strength and welfare of the merchant navy are absolutely vital to our existence and to the existence of every Dominion. It is almost as important as the Royal Navy itself. And here is the Imperial Conference doing no more than reaffirm a perfectly empty Resolution on the subject which it passed 14 years ago. I regard that as a great blemish on the record of a Conference which did well in other ways, and I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that he did something more effective in regard to our great shipping interests than appears from The report.
I regret one other thing. I regret that there was, apparently, no discussion of


the subject of future economic development. We spend a great deal of time in this House, quite rightly, talking about freeing world trade. I am all for it. Let us do our best, but let us recognise that the forces of economic nationalism are still very strong, and that even with the support, if we can get it, of the United States, even with the measures that have been suggested, progress in this is inevitably going to be very slow. Again and again the Governments of Europe have resolved that there shall be a freeing of economic barriers which hamper trade. Again and again practically nothing has been done. It is a most difficult subject and progress in dealing with it, though I hope it will be made, is bound to be very slow. But in the old days when we were building up our industries we did not rely on getting a share of the markets that existed. We built up new markets by investment and enterprise, and the markets that were perhaps of the greatest value to us were those that we ourselves made. The day for that has not passed. Capital is piling up and is not being used. Surely the time has come when this great Empire should discuss, if need be with the encouragement of the Government, which must be given, the use of capital for building up new markets and for helping to increase employment and to maintain our standard here. Let us remember that money invested for this purpose in the Empire itself is much safer than money invested elsewhere. Practically the whole world has repudiated international debts, but I do not think there is a single debt which has not been paid to the full within the British Commonwealth, and that is a fact that has some importance at present.
The development of the Dominions is absolutely vital to our own prosperity, and I do not believe that there are great prospects of doing that by the development of agriculture. I believe we have to encourage secondary industries. They are going to have that, anyhow. Let us use our capital to help them in getting it, but let us see, while we do so, that the arrangements for the development of industry there are complementary and that, while they develop on those lines, they leave us the command of certain other lines. It is in that way that trade can now best be expanded between the Dominions and ourselves. I most deeply regret that that matter was not dealt with

in any way by the Imperial Conference, but I hope very much that it is being studied by our own Government. The initiative, obviously, must come from us, because we command these great reserves of capital. In the United States and in this country are the only great reserves of capital in the world at present, and they should most certainly be used to the full. Apart from these questions, on which I feel very deeply, I congratulate His Majesty's Government upon the work which was done by the last Imperial Conference. I believe that it was well conducted on our side, and that it exercised a quiet and most invaluable influence upon the peace of Europe and of the world in the present summer and in the months that are to come. I hope that we shall be meeting again at an interval much shorter than has passed between recent conferences to discuss cooperation once more for the purpose of preserving our freedom and the peace of the world.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: We have few opportunities in this House of discussing the work of the Dominions Office, and much as I would like to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) in a discussion of the work of the Imperial Conference, I feel that my time would be better used this afternoon by directing attention to a number of problems which are of special interest to hon. Members on these benches. I want to talk about certain tendencies in connection with native policy in Africa, and, while I am conscious that in this House we are very remote from those great places where difficult problems have to be tackled, nevertheless, we have very real responsibilities, which are a form of trust which this House cannot very lightly let go. Much of the criticism is interpreted in our Dominions as unfair, but I would say that we are not unmindful of the complexity and the difficulties of these racial questions. We do not, when we pass criticism, suggest that those who have to tackle these problems are in any way less human or less humane than ourselves. The responsibility is with us, and while it is with us we have to take it seriously. The aim of Rhodes, in his historic phrase, was to secure equal rights for all civilised men south of the Zambesi. That is where we on these benches, and,


I am sure, Members in all parts of the House, stand. Unfortunately, recent legislation in Southern Rhodesia has worsened the status and security of the native people, and I regret that our Dominions Office has given that reactionary legislation its approval.
I would urge upon the Dominions Secretary that he should, as far as the future is concerned anyway, exercise his powers with the utmost discretion and not join in this general retreat from the great Liberal principles of Colonial policy which have been declared from time to time by great statesmen of our own country, and which are in the records of our own Colonial policy. There is a danger that the powers of reservation in Downing Street are likely to be challenged. In any case, one suspects that before long a demand will be forthcoming, and certainly will be vocal in Southern Rhodesia, that the Colony itself should be the complete master in its own house. I hope that no Government in Southern Rhodesia will ask that these powers of reservation should be withdrawn, and that they will appreciate the importance that we in this House attach to our own solemn obligations, certainly in respect to native policy. We have the example already where these powers of reservation are destroyed that a very unhappy reactionary policy in regard to the natives can be pursued, as it is being pursued at the moment in the Union of South Africa.
As far as Southern Rhodesia is concerned, I believe that, from the statements that have been made by representative people, and certainly by the statement of the Governor of Southern Rhodesia, there is the possibility that before long we shall be confronted with a demand that the native franchise shall be abolished altogether. The creation of local native councils is no substitute for the native franchise. The franchise is the hallmark of citizenship, equality and freedom. It may be fashionable at the moment for those who are interested in Colonial administration to speak of the creation of parallel institutions, but we have to be careful that these parallel institutions do not spell the servitude of the native people. At least as far as Rhodesia is concerned one would hope that they will keep in mind the ideal of Rhodes himself,

of equal rights for all civilised men, irrespective of colour, south of the Zambesi.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) referred to the question of amalgamation in Northern and Southern Rhodesia. I would ask the Minister what really has transpired as a result of the discussions between the two Governments during the Imperial Conference? Is there any approach towards a common policy as between the two Governments? Is there any possibility of a redrafting of the frontiers between the two Colonies? What exactly is going on? Shall we before long be confronted with something already agreed upon to merge the two Colonies? One would like to know precisely where we stand, because this House ought to have the opportunity of declaring itself before so important a step is taken.
I turn for a few moments to the question of the Protectorates. I recognise at once that each of the Protectorates is a separate problem. It has its separate history and its own distinct relationships, and I am also conscious that the economic prosperity and future of the Protectorates to a degree are tied up with the Union of South Africa itself. At the same time, there is too easy an assumption that inevitably these territories must pass into the Union, and I want to offer some observations in respect of this matter. When the Act of Union was passed the question of transfer was tied up with the whole question of native policy. It was partly because we could get no satisfaction in the negotiations at the time of the Convention and subsequently, that reservations were made in the Act both in respect to South Africa itself as well as to the Protectorates. Lord De Villiers said at the time that Great Britain regarded itself in a special sense as the guardian and trustee of the natives of South Africa, and that if a settlement of the native franchise question was regarded by us as unsatisfactory, the Protectorates would not he considered for transfer. A little later Lord Selborne said that the obligations of His Majesty's Government to the tribes inhabiting the Basutoland and Bechuanaland Protectorates were obligations of honour of the greatest possible weight, and that in respect of Swaziland the obligations were only different in degree. It was partly


because of this disagreement that the Schedule was made to the Union Act. It was made permissive and so strong was the feeling in this House at the time, in regard to the possibility of transfer, that the Government spokesman, when the Bill was going through this House, declared that it did not bring transfer an hour nearer; in fact it made it more difficult. Since the passing of the Act, conditions have changed.
We have heard this afternoon about the Statute of Westminster, and whatever reservations were possible in 1909 owing to the passing of the Statute of Westminster, such reservations would become inoperative if these territories were transferred to the Union. The Schedule requirements, therefore, of the Union Act cannot be safeguarded, and if the transfer occurred it would mean that these native peoples would be subject to the native policy in respect to the African people. I suggest that without reservation or some alternative safeguard we cannot reverse the policy and principles which prevented the transfer of these territories in 1906 and 1909. I go further and point out that in the Union the situation in reference to the Rhodesias is even worse than is the case with the Protectorates. No one to-day would suggest for a moment that Southern Rhodesia should throw in her lot with the Union, or that the Union has any right or power to compel the transfer of Southern Rhodesia into the Union itself. Whatever may be in the Schedule, at least conditions have changed and this problem has to be looked at afresh.
There is the third consideration, and that is, What is the nature of our position in these Protectorates? These people would never ask or accept the protection of either the White or Dutch colonists in South Africa. They constantly asked for the protection of the British Crown, and they did not, when we afforded our help and co-operation, surrender their territories. What they did allow us to do was to co-operate and assist them in the management and control of their own government. That position is made perfectly clear in Section 151 of the Act of the Union, which points out that it is not the territories which may be transferred but the government of these territories. Therefore, if it is not the land that may be transferred into the Union, and if we are there at the request of the natives themselves to assist them in government

and to protect them, obviously, before any transfer can be conceded we have not only to consult them, but we have also to secure their consent. Therefore, I want to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the feeling on these benches is very definitely that we cannot endorse transfer without the consent of the natives who are concerned.
Why is it that this immediate demand is presented to us? I suggest that it arises in part from the policy that has been pursued by the Union Government in relation to their own African people. First, it seems obvious that the Union Government want a great source of labour supply for their farms, their towns and mines, and the Protectorates offer a considerable labour reservoir which can be drawn upon, and is being drawn upon in some respects to a degree which has very severe social consequences in the Protectorates. It is obvious that in the days to come the Rand will call for more and more labour and that the transfer of the Protectorates to the Union would bring these reservoirs of labour completely under Union control.
It is unfortunate that a great deal of this Protectorate labour when it enters the Union is used to depress the wage standards of the native people belonging to the Union. It seems to me that the Union is pressing its claim partly because of the results of its own native policy. That policy has been vigorously pursued in the Union and there is a great demand for land by the natives, a demand which cannot be satisfied, and the only hope of satisfying that demand is by incorporating the Protectorates and putting more natives on to the land in the Protectorates. I wonder whether another factor in the claim of the Union for transfer of the Protectorates may be the suspicion that there is mineral wealth in certain lands of the Protectorates which cannot be alienated. The natives themselves and the protectorates are definitely opposed to transfer. Only two years ago they rejected an offer of the Prime Minister of the Union of a grant which was designed to help in the development of their economic resources. Obviously, the natives much prefer the easy-going British administration and the freedom they enjoy in the Protectorates to the restraint and re-


striction which would be imposed upon them by the Union's native policy.
In the Union, the enshrined policy is the Transvaal policy laid down in Article 9 of the late Transvaal Constitution, of no equality between black and white in Church or State. There has been a range of recent repressive legislation at the expense of the native people—pass laws, land laws, labour laws and a whole series of laws of a definitely restrictive character, and one can appreciate, therefore, why the natives in the Protectorates refuse to be transferred to the Union. If we want any further proof we have the Statement of Mr. Pirow in the "Daily Telegraph" last month, in which he declared that the existing policy of the Union definitely, once and for all time, denies social and political equality for Africans. He goes on to say that today the African white population, with very few exceptions, repudiates the idea of equality between black and white. If that is the policy of the Union one can appreciate the reluctance of the people in the Protectorates to come under that kind of control. Certainly, it is not a very attractive doctrine to offer to the heroic Basutos and the other tribes whose record and history are very notable.
I do not think we can leave the matter where it is, particularly in view of considerable criticism in which the South African Press has indulged recently in regard to the character and nature of our own administration in these Protectorates. Sir Alan Pim, in his report, and there are other reports, presents to us a very terrible picture of the conditions which result from the neglect of our own administration. I would suggest that indirect rule should not mean stagnation. Certainly, the principles of indirect rule ought to operate in much the same direction as that in which we have made them operate in West Africa. I agree that latterly there have been signs of change, but even yet our administration is not half vigorous enough. From the Colonial Development Fund I see that there have been grants to the extent of £83,000 to the three Protectorates, and in the past 10 years nearly £700,000 have also been paid.
I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what is the present policy

of His Majesty's Government in relation to the development of the economic resources of these Protectorates. I know that two of them are a liability, but it is possible to make them valuable assets from the point of view of the native and from the point of view of trade with other parts of Africa as well as with our own country. Let me repeat that native consent must be obtained before transfer is contemplated. The South African Union must provide considerable safeguards and give confidence in the justice of their own native policy before this House consents to the transfer of the Protectorates. Moreover, we must pursue a much more vigorous policy in our development of the Protectorates before we are asked to contemplate their transfer. May I ask a final question in regard to these territories? What is the nature of the new instruction which will be issued to our British officials in these territories? We cannot agree to anything in the nature of coercion. If the natives desire to go of their own free will, well and good, but I should like to hear along what lines of policy His Majesty's Government are developing, in regard to the instructions for the future to our own administrators on the spot, and whether it will involve any undue pressure for transfer from this side.
The final matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the Dominions Secretary is the position of Newfoundland. Newfoundland shed herself of self-government in 1933 until such time as she might become self-supporting again. That was a very big leap in the dark. The three years have gone and the Dominions Secretary now informs us that it is premature to consider any change. The budget of Newfoundland remains unbalanced. They want £700,000 this year in order to pay their way. We have already granted £1,350,000 towards the expenses of administration, and from the Colonial Development Fund we have paid out £670,000. Still, it is fair to say, not less than 20 to 25 per cent. of the population of Newfoundland are on relief and there is appalling poverty. The children are under-nourished and illiterate. Twenty-two per cent. of them are without schooling. There is a considerable infantile mortality, the medical services are starved and the island still suffers from poor communications. There is still room


for a very considerable economic drive if the standards are to be improved.
The "Times" recently told us that there was returning prosperity in the island, and the Dominions Secretary told us that there will be a long-term programme worked out in connection with the island. That is all to the good, but I suggest that so far progress has been slow and the kind of problem that the Commission Government has had to meet is precisely the same sort of problem that the democratic government itself had to face. The abdication was conceived in something of a financial panic in the island and also in this country. Other governments before now have defaulted, have been extravagant, inefficient, and possibly careless about their own internal resources, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a bad test as to whether democratic status is to be preserved, if that test is whether the State is financially solvent or not. Newfoundland to-day is supported largely because this country happens to be her milch cow. The Commission has not been able to get over the difficulties which confronted the democratic government. Those difficulties were partly due to an excessive war patriotism. They spent more than they could afford. It was due also to the effects of the world slump, to the vagaries of markets, to high tariffs and to the insecurity of certain of their markets, due to changes in European politics.
Now, we have virtually a dictatorship in control. It is usual to plead the merits of dictatorship on the grounds of its efficiency. While there may be some compensation for a highly efficient autocratic government, there are also very great disadvantages. People tend to lose their self-respect and to lose their technique in the art and work of government. It would be stupid to say that you improve democratic government by abolishing it altogether. My right hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the Minister to the fact that there is a growing restlessness in Newfoundland. That is natural enough when one thinks of their long tradition in democratic government. Let us also remember that in the development of our Colonial Empire we have ourselves met disaster because we have had not too great respect for the principle, that taxation should carry with it some form of

representation. While there is very little local government in the Island it is unfortunate that criticism is not permitted to the degree that is desirable. There is an attempt at times to suppress criticism of the administration itself. If people want to go to hell I think they should go in their own way.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he cannot restore democratic government to Newfoundland at the present stage, there should at least be some modification of the present form of Commission government, and I should like to ask him to give more attention to the type of commissioner who is appointed. Ex-civil servants and men with that type of mind are excellent in their way, but this is also a political problem, and we want people who are widely versed in the handling of people and public affairs to play a part in the work of the Commission. In the second place, I would also ask, in view of the appalling poverty, that a more vigorous policy of economic development should be pursued and, thirdly, that in some way or other some sense of civic responsibility should be built up in the Island. At the present time there is no channel of self-expression at all except in the newspapers. I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman considering whether it is not possible to set up an advisory representative assembly, with certain limited powers, which might act as an advisory body to the Commission. I bring these matters to the notice of the Secretary of State in the hope that he will approach this problem with a little more sympathy and more of his own democratic fervour than is at present obvious when he declares that no change can be considered because the economic changes have not gone far enough.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I desire to refer to one subject which has been mentioned by almost every speaker and particularly by the right hon. Gentleman who began the Debate and by his follower who has just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate did us the justice to refer to the tenderness felt in all parts of the House on questions of native welfare, and he was particularly careful to say nothing which might from the South African point of view appear to partake of that unctuous rectitude of


which Mr. Cecil Rhodes once complained, or of any sort of tendency to be hypercritical about people who actually have to live and work with black men and arrange for their government. The right hon. Gentleman was very careful indeed in this respect, and although I have no wish to be controversial I do not think the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) was quite so careful. He spoke, as he was quite entitled to do of the special interest his party took in them, and at some considerable length attributed motives to the Union Government and implied a superiority of the part of the British Government.
For the purpose of my argument it does not matter at all whether this attribution of motives to the Union Government is right or not, or whether we here have really any great superiority in the matter of treating native races. The real question is not there. It is not whether we do or would treat them better. Nor can I take so much comfort as most hon. Members seem to do in the word "trustee," which I think raises almost as many questions as it answers. After all, the British Government must be first of all a trustee for the people of Britain, and, therefore, to say that we are trustees for Africans does not get us much further if there is any clash of interests between the two. I believe that in the long range interests of this country there can be nothing which is not in the honest judgment of this Government in the interests of the natives for whom we are responsible.
The Protectorates which are inside Union territory are in this matter strategic points of an importance which can hardly be exaggerated. Whether or not it is true that our own economic management of them has not been very good, and for all I have to say to the contrary it may be true, and I endorse the request made that we should be more active, more generous and more provident in these economic matters in the future, whatever view may be taken of these matters does not really affect my argument, which is that in the literal and moral strategy of the Empire it is essential that faith should be kept and should be evidently seen to be kept with the inhabitants of these territories. I am perhaps repeating what has been said by hon. Members opposite,

but I think it is worth while to take a little time to say it again it only because it should be said from this side of the House.
But I say it with some slight difference. The hon. Member for Shipley, having more or less reached the point which I reached a moment ago, went on to argue that there ought now to be a pledge that natives would not he handed over to the Union Government without their own consent. I should be sorry to take the responsibility of pressing on the Government the view that no Swazi or Basuto should be transferred to Union control without his consent. I should be slow to press that view because I think you might get into serious difficulties of interpretation, of what is meant, for instance, by the word "consent." There is an instance of this sort of difficulty in the White Paper on Palestine, where the Government speak of an "effective measure of consent on the part of the communities concerned." That choice of words itself makes it clear how difficult it is when you are dealing with Palestine, and it may be more difficult when you are dealing with South Africa to be quite certain what is the community and what are the units, and how the question can be put, and in what sense it can be clear that consent has been gained. On that ground I think the Government might hesitate to say that there must be consent.
I think it might obviously hesitate on other grounds. On the ground that in the long run the best chance for the three parties, English, Bantus and South Africans, is a minimum of irritation, and that to put up the bar now higher than it was in 1909 would irritate Afrikander statesmen and would really be to nobody's interest. The Government might hesitate on that ground, though it may well remember that General Hertzog in his speech in 1925 said:
Unless these people are prepared and desirous to come I am not going to insist upon having them.
To press for stiffer conditions than we have yet laid down is a responsibility which I think no private Member can undertake. But I do not think it can be too clearly laid down that the pledges which have been given stand. Promises of consultation have been made and, therefore, this House can never be satis-


fied with anything that even looks in the least like a betrayal of those promises. It cannot be made too clear that no British Government would in any circumstances hand over these territories without consulting the inhabitants or without consulting Parliament on the result of the consultations.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I am somewhat puzzled as to the distinction which the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) seemed to draw between consent of the inhabitants and some other obligations to which this country is committed. I want to ask the Secretary of State to make crystal clear the intentions of the Government with regard to the future of the three Protectorates, Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland. Those who have been following the course of events in South Africa recently must have seen blowing up in our South African Dominion a first-class problem as to what is going to be the attitude of this Government in relation to its repeated declarations of policy as to the treatment of the native populations. I accept the explanation which was given us that so far as this country is concerned, and as far as the Government is concerned, there is no kind of existing undertaking to the South African Dominion that these Protectorates would be transferred, but one cannot escape the fact that in South Africa itself, and particularly on the part of the Prime Minister, there is a strong impression that there is a definite undertaking which has to be implemented sooner or later. I have here the report of a speech delivered by General Hertzog on 6th July, in which he said:
It is inconceivable for me to accept that there can be much further delay in the transfer of the territories or that the Union Government should be compelled to have recourse to the South Africa Act, to request the King, by means of a decision of Parliament, to accede to the transfer.
He went on to say:
It is clear to me that in British circles the question of the transfer is being played with in a manner which does not keep adequate count of the right of the Union to demand that the transfer shall not be delayed any longer.
In view of those statements, it is clear that whatever may be the view and the position of our own Government, in South Africa there is, on the part of the Government there, a deep-rooted opinion that

they are entitled to have the transfer. I accept definitely the explanation given on 9th July by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that no such undertaking has been given, but although I accept that, I confess that I am disturbed by the words of his predecessor in what is known as the Aide-Memoire of 15th May, 1935. In a document sent to the South African Government, His Majesty's Government recommended:
That the policy of both Governments for the next few years should be directed to bringing about such a situation in which, if transfer were to become a matter of practical politics, it could be effected with the full acquiescence of the people concerned.
The document went on to say:
With this end in view, it was proposed that the closest possible co-operation should be established between the Union Government and the administration of the territories.
I wish to ask the Minister what is the situation to which the Government referred in which they would regard it as desirable to recommend that transfer should take place? What is the kind of co-operation that they have in mind in the reference in the aid-memoire? To my mind that is a disturbing element in the situation. Does it mean that the Government are committed to a policy of promoting co-operation between the official administration of the Union of South Africa and the official administrations of the territories? Does it mean that the two elements, the official administrators in the Union and those in the territories, shall co-operate, or are the native elements to be brought into co-operation? I can well realise that in those circumstances there may be very naturally a sort of impression conveyed, a kind of opinion built up as a result of that co-operation, which would lead the Union Government to consider that they have a perfect right, as expressed in General Hertzog's speech, to have these territories transferred.
I will go a step further, and say that it seems to me that, even assuming that one could secure such co-operation between the administrators of the South African Government and those of the territories concerned as would bring about a situation in which it was regarded as desirable that transfer should be promoted, there is another consideration which ought to weigh with the House and the Government. We are committed to recognising that in all these territories the welfare of the inhabitants, not only of to-day but of


the future, is a sacred trust. We have to consider not simply whether consent could be obtained to transfer, but whether, in the views of this House, that transfer would be in the best interests of the natives, knowing the circumstances which would obtain when the transfer had taken place. On that point I wish to quote some very wise words spoken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) at the Imperial Conference in 1921. Speaking on the question of the policy of this country towards Colonial territories and the inhabitants of those territories, he used these words:
I think there is only one ideal that the British Empire can set before it, that is, there should be no barriers of race, colour or creed which should prevent any man by merit from reaching any station if he is fitted for it.
Is there any party in the House which does not subscribe to that? Is there any hon. Member who can say that that principle is embodied in the administration of the South African Dominion towards its native inhabitants? No one can say that it is acknowledged. We have to visualise, if the policy of encouragement of transfer goes on, whether in the transfer these principles to which we subscribe would be protected and safeguarded. We know, of course, that that is not the case. We know well that in the South African Dominion the native inhabitant has none of these rights. In the Union of South Africa, with a total population of 8,000,000, there are no less than 6,000,000 natives. They have not the right to elect a single Member to Parliament. No native has a right to sit in the South African Parliament. Every kind of distinction is drawn by law against the 6,000,000 natives. They have not the right to engage in the same kind of trades, they may not work along with white people, and they are subjected to all sorts of segregation, placed in compounds, labelled and docketed by all kinds of conditions and pass laws. In the Union of South Africa, they are treated to-day as the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for the small white population. Surely we have to weigh those things when we consider whether we will consent to be a party to transfer without some definite legal powers by this House to secure the rights of equal citizenship for the masses

of the native inhabitants who might be transferred.
May I draw the attention of the House to the present position? At the present time, in the Protectorates, what are known as the pass laws do not obtain, but in Southern Rhodesia, where there is now a Dominion form of Government, as in South Africa, the pass laws are now universal. I will remind the Committee of what takes place under those laws, which apply right through South Africa, and to which the native inhabitants, if they were transferred, would naturally be subjected. If a native stops in a town over night, he must go to a hostel; he must be in half an hour before sunset, he must not leave until half an hour after sunrise; he must carry his pass and certificate in a book wherever he goes, and he is guilty of an offence if he does not carry the book with him.
The result of this system has been a great increase in the number of convictions. In Southern Rhodesia, in 1927, there were 8,940 convictions under the pass laws. In 1935, in the same Dominion, there were 19,773 convictions. In the Union of South Africa, there were 42,000 convictions in 1936. That is what the native would be subjected to if he were transferred from the Protectorates where he now lives, either to the Union Government or to the Rhodesian Government as the case might be. The question arises as to what is the attitude of the natives. There is a strong feeling on the part of the natives in the Protectorates, who are there as our trust, who came to us and placed themselves under our authority with confidence, that this danger is very imminent. I notice that on the same day that General Hertzog made his speech at Bloemfontein, the representative of the "Cape Times" interviewed one of the chiefs of Basutoland, and the chief is reported to have said that opinion in Basutoland is bitterly opposed to the Union having the Protectorates. The report of the newspaper reads:
'It would be a tragedy,' he says. He admits that there is something to be said against the rule of the present Paramount Chief, but the people would sooner have their present lot than he under the Union. 'They feel they are free under the British Government, and wish to remain so.'
No wonder the natives are suspicious of the offers of financial assistance which are made to them. No wonder they turn that


assistance down, for they know it is offered for the purpose of weaning away their independence and of making them amenable to possible transfer as time goes on. For these reasons, I urge the House to realise that the question is becoming serious, both for this country and for the South African people, and I ask the Minister to give a clear declaration that, as far as this House is concerned, we shall stand by the right of equal citizenship for all classes in our territories.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I hope the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) will forgive me if I do not take up some of the points he raised in his thoughtful speech. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who opened the Debate, prefaced his remarks by referring to the Imperial Conference. He claimed that that Conference had failed to achieve any material results. It is often very difficult to set down in black and white the actual results of such Conferences, but the opportunities which they provide for strengthening those intangible ties which Burke in a much-quoted phrase described as "light as air and strong as iron" are unique. It is probably far more important that, instead of passing numberless resolutions, these Conferences should help people in all parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations to maintain the same ideas of justice and personal liberty, and laugh at the same jokes in "Punch."
Apart from these great Conferences, which take place at stated intervals, we have adopted the definite idea of consulting the Dominions before embarking on any major issue of policy, and that idea of consultation does not merely imply consulting Governments. It must, in the long run, imply consulting public opinion in the Dominions. I fear that most people in this country are more often than not ignorant of public opinion in the Dominions. The average Englishman may get accurate news about the result of a test match, but frequently events nearer home, such as the capture of Bilbao or one of Mussolini's speeches, engage his attention.
How much does the average Englishman realise that the average Canadian, whether he lives on the sea coast in the

Quebec Province, or in the vast plains round Winnipeg, or on the shores of British Columbia, thinks himself happily far removed from the troubles of an unpleasant world? The Canadian on one side sees 3,000 miles across the Atlantic the distant shores of Europe, and on the other side, 4,000 miles away, the coast of Asia. On his Southern border he sees the great United States of America. Every evening on the wireless he hears American views on world policy. It is an open secret that America is extremely isolationist in spirit at the present moment, and the Canadian, although he regards himself primarily as a member of the British Commonwealth, likewise regards himself as belonging to a North American Power. When we consider our policy, we must take into account the fact that Canada would be very reluctant to support any policy which tended towards meddlesome interference in Europe. I have heard certain Canadian jurists go as far as to say that in the event of a future war, they might claim the right to be neutral. I do not think it is profitable to stress differences, but we should recognise these facts.
How much, likewise, does the average Englishman know about public opinion in Australia? For the most part he looks on Australia as a vast continent with a population only equal to that of London, whose immense spaces he regards as providing marvellous opportunities for making fortunes in sheep fanning. Does he realise that Australia in the future must concentrate her efforts on secondary industries, and that the men she will require will not be sheep farmers, but mechanics and technicians to act as key men? How much also does the average Englishman know of the problems of South Africa? To him it is a great country which possesses a marvellous climate, a vast open veldt, and a country where gold and diamonds are found. But does he realise the grave problems which arise when white men work alongside black men. There is a certain danger in this lack of knowledge in the separate parts of the Dominions.
The experience of Chanak in 1922 taught us a valuable lesson, and its repercussions were so wide that it would be foolish to ignore them. Hon. Members will recall that Mustafa Kemal had then just arisen as the new dictator of Turkey. Having crushed the Greek


army at the battle of Afium-Karahistar, he had chased the dispirited and broken horde across the plains of Anatolia into the sea. Smyrna had been burned and its inhabitants massacred. But across the Aegean a new Greek army was massing in Thrace ready to strike again at Turkey. Mustafa Kemal determined to overwhelm that army, but across his path lay a British army at Chanak under the command of Sir Charles Harington. The Government sent appeals to the Dominions to support them, because they thought war was inevitable, but the Dominions refused their support. As a result, a plenipotentiary in the person of M. Franklin Bouillon was sent, while the two armies faced each other across the barbed wire. He agreed to the most humiliating terms. The Greek army in Thrace was disbanded, and we evacuated Constantinople and Turkey.

Sir E. Grigg: I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to give a mistaken account of the history of this matter. The Dominions never went so far as to refuse their help. They asked for certain information which showed that they were not keen about it, but it is going very far to say that they refused their help.

Mr. Kerr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his correction on the point of history, but I think the fact is patent that Great Britain was compelled owing to the lukewarm attitude of the Dominions to agree almost immediately to what were practically dictated terms.

Sir E. Grigg: There was a change of Government.

Mr. Kerr: The change of Government may have altered the circumstances, but we had to evacuate Turkey and remove our army from Constantinople. However, I only take that as an illustration of this country acting in advance of popular opinion in the Dominions. It seems to me that the main problem is to try to educate the Dominions and the separate parts of the Commonwealth to understand each other. I know that the Empire Press Union performs valuable services, but it concerns itself mainly with technical details such as the lowering of cable rates. I have to put forward a modest suggestion. In each Empire capital committees should be formed with

the principal committee in London. On those committees should sit the High Commissioners and representative members of the Press, who, from their expert knowledge could advise, on the best ways of placing information. Let us say, for example, that it is decided that an article on Australia's position in the Pacific is desirable. The Press experts would be able to say that such an article would find a place in certain journals and that it should take a certain form and be so many words in length. On those committees, also, should sit representatives of the cinema industry and of Broadcasting House.
Popular opinion is only too willing to be informed. Three years ago I was in a cinema in Toronto, and, when an excellent film was shown of the architectural beauties and historical associations of Windsor Castle, the interest of the audience was immediate and obvious. I believe that a willingness on the part of the Dominions to learn about each other is present, and that it should be exploited. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), referring to Lord Jellicoe and the Grand Fleet in the last War, said that Lord Jellicoe was the only man who could have lost the War in an afternoon. Had the German Fleet been victorious, not only would our coasts have lain open to invasion, but no American troops would ever have reached France. What was true in a strategic sense of the Grand Fleet on that occasion is true in the political sense to-day of Empire solidarity. Empire solidarity is the best political counter which we possess. To adopt a French technical term, we must keep our masse de manoeuvre intact. I hope that my hon. Friend, than whom there is no more excellent champion of Dominion solidarity, will sympathetically consider this modest suggestion.

6.54 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: I intervene in this Debate only to deal with two topics. I was very glad to hear the tributes which came from above the Gangway to the British flag in Africa. They were tributes such as we do not, perhaps, always hear from that quarter. The tone of the speeches to-day has certainly been very friendly, and I am glad to find that there is so much common ground on these matters between Members in different parts of the House.


Speaking as one who has had close contacts with our Empire in Africa I can say how delighted all British citizens in that part of the world will be at the tone of this Debate. On the question of the Protectorates there is, I think, considerable agreement among those who have addressed the House. Without going into detail I would say that we are probably all agreed that, whatever happens, we must be very strict in regard to our honourable undertakings to the Protectorates.
If I may presume to do so I would congratulate the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on his remarks in that connection. There was hardly anything which he said on that subject with which I found myself in disagreement. At the same time one has to realise that it is not helpful to a solution of the problem to criticise in this House the administration of native affairs in the Union of South Africa. For better or worse this House parted with its power to govern, and, indeed, with its power of criticism in the case of the Union, and it is unfortunate if we, who do not know these problems as they are understood in the Union should, because we are thinking of other problems, criticise severely the Union Government's policy with regard to native legislation. That does not alter the fact that the House is probably unanimous, as I believe the country is unanimous, that, unless we are convinced that it is for the well-being of the people of the Protectorates that they should be transferred, and unless there is a general desire among the people themselves to be transferred to the Union, we should see that they retain the protection of the British flag referred to so eloquently by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley).
With regard to Imperial policy as a whole, I would point out that while we are rising to-morrow for a prolonged and well-deserved holiday, the major affairs of the British Empire have hardly been discussed at all in this House during the past year. We have been concentrating on exciting matters which have no direct concern with this country, although the principles involved may, it is true, affect the opinions of people in this House and rouse them to great passion. But the mightly organism of the British Empire has received from this House very little constructive help during the past year, although we have had criticisms thrown

at this or that policy adopted, in one or other of its parts. I had the honour of tabling a Motion on the subject of Empire settlement about a month ago. It was supported by 250 Members—a large majority of the back-benchers. The higher orders, the mandarins were not even approached and asked to sign that notice of Motion, and, of course, if they had been asked, they would have refused, because they must keep themselves detached from ordinary mortals whether above or below the Gangway. The fact remains that a considerable number of Members of this House signed that notice of Motion, and I think many hon. Members above the Gangway would also have signed it but we had not time to approach them.
That remarkable degree of assent showed that a large body in this House is anxious that His Majesty's Government should reopen with the Dominions the question of Empire settlement and development, and give a lead to the Dominions upon it. I am not going to weary the House with a repetition of speeches which have been heard on this subject again and again. We are all agreed that the day when the Dominions open their gates once more to immigration from this country will be a good day both for this country and for the Dominions themselves. We must all be convinced as we look round the world that increase of population will give the greatest security and the greatest power of development for which the Dominions can hope. Are we not unwise then to niggle about questions of fifty-fifty, and so forth, in any plans which may be brought forward? I doubt if the Dominions at this moment have even yet sufficiently recovered from the depression to put up much money to meet development schemes, but who can doubt, who has made any study of this question, that there are great possibilities for development in the Empire, using British capital linked up with the transfer of British labour to help in that development?
Can anyone doubt that it would be for the ultimate advantage of the island continent of Australia if the great railway running right along her Southern frontier were turned into a unified gauge instead of there being different gauges? It must come some day. Is that not a case where we might go to the Commonwealth Government of Australia and ask them to put


the matter before the States as to whether we should not assist in that great and obviously desirable work? We should advance money at the lowest rate of interest, and it may well be that the work would be done on the condition that the labour and material employed should be fifty-fifty British and Australian. There are great roads in various parts of the Empire which might be extended, requiring a great deal of labour, which themselves would bring industry, settlement and development with them. There is one in Vancouver Island which, I am sure, would bring a great number of settlers and tourists into that country if the work were done. Who can deny that it is astounding that we have done nothing to link up the Peace River district either through British Columbia or Alberta, or both?
This is a policy which should be carried out. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was greatly criticised when he in this House as Colonial Secretary advocated the extension of railways through at least a dozen different territories of the British Empire. Everybody said that they would be a burden, but in every case they helped to lift these Colonies on to a paying basis. It is with these ideas that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to concern himself. Has not the time come when we should have a forward Imperial policy? The Government in their great major policies—if they will take it from one who has criticised them—have had a triumphant success. Have they a policy for carrying on that work? I cannot believe that they have, and at the present time you want to give this people something further to work for. Nothing would appeal to the youth of the country more than the knowledge that he is going to be a good landlord and see the whole of his territories as far as possible developed. If you can help with the finance, which this country has a great surplus to dispose of and to assist with, trade and agriculture will inevitably follow that finance and population will follow agriculture and trade. If we can link up these ideas we shall do something to carry this country one step further forward in the progress which we have seen so rapidly advanced in the last five years.

7.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: If I return again to the vexed and anxious question

of the transfer of the Protectorates, I can assure the House that I shall endeavour to refrain from repeating any of the arguments and opinions which have already been advanced. I wish to call attention to the ambiguity and lack of precision in the language employed by this and preceding Governments in their statements and so-called pledges on this subject, because although I am entirely opposed to the transfer of these Protectorates while the legislation of the Union Government in regard to natives is so reactionary in character and so opposed to our own traditions on the subject, yet I feel that the Union Government have certain legitimate grounds of complaint in the ambiguity and lack of clarity in the language used by our Government in their statements on this subject. Certain arguments in favour of transfer have been put forward this afternoon. I am very much afraid that this question of transfer is becoming a matter of prestige in the Union of South Africa, and that the prestige argument will be increasingly used and non-transfer become considered as a stigma. That will be a very unfortunate development, and likely to lead to bad blood.
While the Act of 1909 did contemplate the possibility of a transfer of Protectorates, it equally contemplated the possibility of transfer of Southern and Northern Rhodesia, and every argument which can be put forward in favour of the transfer of the three Protectorates may equally be advanced in regard to the transfer of Southern and Northern Rhodesia. A previous speaker referred to the fact that the natives of the three Protectorates are attached to our Sovereign and would regard transfer as a breach of faith. In view of the facts which have been quoted about the backwardness of the development and administration of these territories there is something rather pathetic that the natives should still have this faith and trust in us.
I know that it is rather unpopular on the benches opposite to make any reference to the Covenant of the League of Nations, because the National Government have most effectively taken this country out of the League for all practical purposes. But the fact remains that by the League Covenant we are as a signatory bound to the statement that


"the well-being and development of such peoples forms a sacred trust of civilisation." We are pledged to that by our signature to the Covenant. I notice in this connection that a Bishop has written to the "Times" to say that the Basutos are a very engaging and carefree people. That seems to me to be what British administration should aim at, but the Bishop denied their right to be happy, and said that they must be efficient instead. Really, in this distracting hag-ridden and perplexing world we should gaze enviously on any people who are fortunate enough to be happy and carefree and not envy them their good luck and be anxious to convert them into being efficient with all the cares and neurasthenia that efficiency seems to involve.

Sir Arnold Wilson: Is that not the argument in favour of the Zionists in Palestine?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I think that that arises on another Vote and I will deal with it when I have the appropriate Minister opposite me to fire at. It has been quoted to-day that Mr. Thomas when in office said that the inhabitants, natives as well as Europeans, must be consulted before transfer, and that Parliament must be given an opportunity of expressing its views. He also said at that time, in 1935, that he did not think the time was ripe for consulting the natives but he gave no indication when the time would be ripe or how time becomes ripe, or what was likely to make it ripe. He said that information showed that the natives were opposed at that time to transfer. He went on to say that both governments "for the next few years" should endeavour to bring about.
a situation in which if transfer were to be a matter of practical politics it should he effected with the full acquiescence of the population concerned.
What has been done since that time to implement that statement? What has this Government or the South African Government been doing during the years subsequent to 1935 to bring about this desired situation? The Memorandum from which I am quoting also said that "with this end in view"—the end being acquiescence—
the closest possible co-operation should be established between the Union Government and the administration of the territories,

but the following sentence says that our Government would
consider sympathetically any proposal which the Union Government would make for promoting co-operation on these lines in the administration of these territories.
There is a great deal of difference between "in" and "between." Which is intended? Is the Union Government to discuss with the administrations concerned, or is it to begin to take a share in the administrations concerned? What is meant? Is it "in" or is it "between"? It is matters like these, it is this typical muddled drafting of Government Memoranda, which inevitably lead to misunderstanding and bad feeling. The so-called pledges endeavour to give the idea that the natives will not be transferred against their will. If anybody believes that there is any such pledge I can only say that there is no such pledge. Our only pledge is to consult, and there is no pledge that there will be no transfer if after consultation the natives show themselves unwilling. By the terms of this pledge or statement the Government may transfer against the will of the natives if only they can show that some form of consultation has taken place. Again it seems to me that the word "acquiescence" has been almost deliberately employed in order to mislead. It certainly has misled some very great experts on this subject who in the Press have said that they believe that acquiescence is necessary before transfer can take place. When you analyse all this verbiage it shows that all that has been said is that if it becomes "practical politics"—the phrase used—it should be done with "acquiescence." That is to say, it is agreed that it is desirable that transfer should take place with acquiescence, but there is nothing to say that it will not be done without acquiescence.
If the Government really wanted to make a clear and simple statement on the subject, why could they not say that transfer can never be considered practical politics unless there is acquiescence? That would be a statement about which there could be no ambiguity whatsoever. These phrases seem to me to have been used deliberately to make the Union Government think that everything was all right and that they were going to get the Protectorate, and also to make those people and bodies in this country who defend


the interests of the natives think that no transfer would take place without consent. Really this ambiguity has had the effect of deceiving both sides, and I feel that that is contemptible, because it has excited the indignation of the Union and the contempt of those who, as I say, befriend the natives in this country. Although the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is not in his place, let me say here, with reference to something that he said, that we recognise that those who endeavour to befriend the natives and to look after the obligations of this country towards them are drawn from all parties in this House, and I know that my friends on these benches would claim no special virtue in that respect.
Then, again, this statement says:
if transfer were to become practical politics.
What sort of a term is "practical politics" to put into a State paper? What does it mean exactly? Does it mean anything, or does it mean nothing? What are the conditions of so-called "practical politics" which must be fulfilled before transference can be effected? It is a delightful term that appeals to the self-styled practical business man, of course, but when you come to work it out in terms of what is actually meant by "practical politics," what does it refer to, and why cannot we get a straight answer to the question put in this House the other day as to what is to happen if these so-called "practical politics" allow a transfer, but the "acquiescence" of the natives to transfer is not obtained? It is obvious that there will be no progress in this matter between ourselves and the Union Government until these phrases about "practical politics," "the time being ripe," and "the next few years" and so on, are cleared up and given definite and precise meanings, and I think the Union Government have a perfect right to ask for and to expect definite and precise language on these points instead of such muddled, if not deliberately evasive, drafting.
If such ambiguity is the excuse for General Hertzog's recent rather angry outburst, I think that that outburst also emphasises the stupidity of the recent conversations with General Hertzog not having been reduced to writing by the

Secretary of State for the Dominions and agreed by General Hertzog before he went back to South Africa. May I also call attention to one or two fairly recent statements of General Hertzog? He has said the Union Government would not wish to incorporate the Territories
until the inhabitant s are prepared and desire to come in.
Can he point to any evidence whatsoever that they "are prepared and desire to come in" at this moment? If not, on his own showing, what right has he to demand the immediate transfer of the Protectorate? Again, he has said that there was
no agreement that transfer should take place within any specified time.
That is his own statement, so why is he now complaining of delays in the matter? He makes complaints about instructions to British officials. What exactly is it that he complains of in this respect? Instead of making these complaints, which are at variance with his own past statements, General Hertzog would be better advised to tell us what he has done to win that confidence and good will of the native populations in South Africa, which are or should be essential conditions of transfer. I do not think the acquiescence of the natives is likely to be gained any the quicker by the spectacle of the two Governments concerned squabbling in this way, nor do I think that the prospects will be improved by threats in the "Cape Times" that the Protectorate natives are at the mercy of the Union Government, who could reduce them to starvation by preventing them passing the Union frontier. I do not think statements of that sort are calculated to gain the good will of the native population.
Again, General Hertzog said that it was
essential for the success of the policy that it should not be hurried,
but now he says that
transfer must be no longer delayed.
What has occurred between these two statements to produce this change of mind? I should like very much to ask that right hon. Gentleman whether one could have an answer about two or three of General Hertzog's statements. Is it true that in 1926 the General was asked to postpone discussion of this question


because of the imminence of a General Election? He has said so. Is it true that no instructions have been sent to the British officials in the Protectorate, as he says was promised in 1935? Is it true, as he says, that the fact that the time for transfer had already expired was conceded two years ago? If that statement is true, by whom was it conceded two years ago that the time for transfer had already expired? Those are two or three points that I think General Hertzog would be well advised to clear up before making some of his angry statements.
There are other South African views which have been expressed besides those of General Hertzog. There is the statement of Mr. Pirow this year, that
the white man must be able to base his attitude towards the native on the idea that the needs of a white civilisation must be considered first at all times.
Such a statement conflicts directly with our policy of trusteeship, but I wish to compare that statement at this moment with a statement of Government policy recently made in another place, the maker of which said that there was not the slightest deviation from it intended. The statement was that the policy of His Majesty's Government is
government of the indigenous races in their own interests and with a view to their elevation in the scale of civilisation, rather than any idea of exploitation in the interests of the immigrant community.
There is a perfectly head-on collision between the policy enunciated by Mr. Pirow and the policy of the Government enunciated the other day in another place. The hon. Member for Cambridge University was not very enthusiastic about what is called trusteeship, but the Government's policy on that question was laid down by a former Colonial Secretary, the Duke of Devonshire, so that there is an hereditary interest in the present Government seeing that that policy is maintained. The principle of trusteeship is that of facing up to the dual interests of the white and black communities and reconciling them, and that policy is completely in conflict with the Union policy of segregation. The fact is that in this matter we are called upon to make a choice, and the choice is a very clear and plain one, which there is no evading. We have to make our choice between a policy in regard to the native races which is grounded in a Statute of the old Boer Republic:

There shall be no equality between black and white, either in Church or State,
and the words of the Charter of 1833:
There shall be no discrimination on account of colour or race.
We hear a great deal in this House, in Debates on foreign affairs, by way of criticism of certain countries, for instance, Germany and Poland and even of the United States of America because of racial discrimination. There are some who will not hear of the return of any Colonies to Germany or the granting of a Mandate to Germany, because, it is said, we could not be satisfied with what the German treatment of the native races would be. We should remember these arguments about racial discrimination, because they apply equally in regard to this question of the transfer of the Protectorate as long as the legislation of the Union Government in regard to natives remains what it is. We have to make our choice between two diametrically conflicting policies, and I can only say that I hope that the country of Wilberforce, the country which abolished slavery, which Lord Rosebery spoke of as one of the rare, if not unique, examples of disinterested statesmanship, will stand up to this issue and stand by our tradition of trusteeship for the coloured races.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) has asked a certain number of pertinent questions, but the matter is rather more complicated than he seemed to think, and I feel he has fallen into the same kind of error as General Hertzog in dealing with this question. It is unfortunate that General Hertzog should have raised the question at all, so soon after the issue of the White Paper on 15th May, 1935. The natives are no more anxious to-day, I think it will be agreed on all hands, and indeed, they are probably less anxious, to come under the Union than they were when the White Paper was issued. Nor do I think the hon. and gallant Member is right when he says that the White Paper is obscure. It seems to me to be easy enough to understand the sense of the White Paper. There are, after all, no strategic or economic reasons why the Protectorates should not be handed over. They can only be approached through Union territory and I do not believe that there can or should be any question of


prestige between one portion of the British Empire and another. To the Union the whole native question is a constant and daily factor; I would go so far as to say that it is an overshadowing problem. We regard it with a detachment they cannot share. The Union is a white oligarchy depending for its labour on a black proletariat, and I would remind hon. Members opposite that a colour bar was introduced and made legal in South Africa only after a Labour victory in that country. It is the skilled labourer who is more hard on the black man than are the people higher up in the social scale.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said that he thought we should not discuss questions of native policy in the Union, but I do not think we can altogether avoid them because if we do ignore their policy we will find it much more difficult to deal with the question of the Protectorates. After all what is done in the Union is bound to affect public opinion within the Protectorates. The abolition of the Cape coloured franchise is a reactionary measure. It goes against the whole policy of the old Cape Parliaments before the Union, and as the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) said, it reverses the policy laid down by Cecil Rhodes that there should be "equal rights for all civilised men south of the Zambesi." The House should realise when we are discussing the question of Protectorates that the division in the Union is not between the British and the Dutch, because the line cuts across both races; it is largely a division between north and south, between the Transvaal and Natal, an entirely English Province, on the one hand, and the Cape on the other. On the question of the policy of the Cape coloured franchise, it was Mr. Hofmeyr, who is a member of General Hertzog's administration, and the holder of a great South African name, who led the opposition to and voted against the policy of abolishing the coloured franchise.
It is important that the House should realise these aspects of the question, because by many of the speeches to-day the impression may be created that there is no opposition in South Africa to the native policy which is being adopted. It

is a small minority, but it is an important minority, which should not be ignored in this Debate. In the Protectorates natives live under native rule with a certain amount of British supervision. As the hon. Member for Shipley said, the Protectorates should be treated as three separate problems. It is no use regarding Basutoland in the same light as we do Swaziland. Basutoland is a country in which a white man may not own property or carry on trade without a licence. Swaziland belongs to a large extent to white men and there is no kind of restriction on commerce. The economic conditions in Basutoland are not alluring, but the natives have great compensations in the far different social and political conditions they enjoy in their own territory. When a native crosses the border of the Union into one of the Protectorates he feels that he is a free and independent man. These are aspects of the question which we must bear in mind when considering this question.
There are strong geographical and economic reasons for the transference. In fact, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind in regard to this point. South Africa is an economic and geographical unit, but there are over-riding and, I should say, overwhelming reasons against the immediate transfer or against this matter being in any way hurried. That does not mean that we should be obstructive. The Union is, I believe, only too well aware of the great disadvantages of forcing unwilling populations under its jurisdiction. It also realises that we cannot and will not break the pledges we have made. Recent events in South Africa have tended to make transference further away rather than to bring it closer. The native policy of the Union Government has not been helpful or reassuring, and I do not think it is any good for General Hertzog or anyone else to pull up the plant and examine the roots every two years. If he wants to hurry on a decision he will make a fatal mistake for it would really only retard agreement rather than help it forward. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the minor Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) with regard to trusteeship, so far as native races are concerned. I do not believe that he meant to pour scorn on such an ideal; I think he merely objected to the phrase. It is undoubtedly the settled line of British


policy in the Protectorates elsewhere in Africa. It is the only way in which we can deal with this great problem.
The Government have, as far as I can see, acted in every way with regard to this question in a proper manner. There is no reason to suppose that they have gone back on the White Paper issued in May, 1935. What the reasons for General Hertzog's sudden outburst were I do not know, and I do not think it wise for any of us to attribute some of the motives that have been attributed to him. We cannot in the long run keep up a division in South Africa so far as the question of the native races is concerned. It is a problem which will grow with the years, and it is essential, if a solution is to be found, that we should co-operate as closely as possible with the South African Government in an endeavour to find a way through our difficulties. It will require much patience and understanding on both sides.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I think the House will agree that in the speech to which we have just listened, coming as it did from one who speaks with undoubted authority on such questions and who enjoys and deserves a reputation on the other side in these matters, there was an indication of a definite non-party plea on questions such as we are discussing. He has given an indication of breadth of mind and thought which showed that he is not following on what one would call the narrow jingoistic line. I agree with him that what happens in the Union of South Africa with regard to the treatment of natives is bound to have reactions throughout all the coloured peoples within the range of the British Empire. It is, therefore, a far-reaching matter which does not concern only that country. I wish I could feel as sure that he seemed to feel when he said that we cannot and will not break the pledges we have made with regard to our trusteeship of the coloured people. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance on that point, because up to now it is lacking.
One of the troubles with which this House and perhaps South Africa are concerned is that we have had had nothing definite from the Government with regard to the position they take up on this question of the proposed transfer of the Protectorates. I want to deal with one

or two of the points that have been raised in the discussion, although one of the disadvantages of the last speaker in a Debate is that he sits and hears all the points which he has carefully prepared taken by preceding speakers so that there is little left for him in the way of fresh material. I want to join with the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) who, in a very interesting speech, indicated that there was an ebb tide with regard to the relationship between the home country and the Dominions. I agree with him that the report of the Imperial Conference indicates a coming together and a better understanding in that connection. I congratulate him on the real effort he made to try and find something in the report of the Imperial Conference. Most of us have been puzzled to find anything. The report has been padded out with a number of names that do not matter, in order presumably to cover up the paucity of the work that was done in the Conference. The hon. Member, I think, will agree that with all one's endeavour to find something in the report, there is very little light and leading to be got from it.
I agree with him that the right line must be to break down the economic barriers and all those things which serve to separate people. In some way or other we must find a means of bringing into closer economic co-operation the peoples of the Empire, whether they are coloured or white. I am bound to say that, after all, the report was a mountain in labour and that the mouse it has brought forth is a tiny one. I join issue with the hon. Member for Altrincham when he says it is no good quarrelling with nationalism. Nationalism is a strong sentiment which we cannot express in concrete terms. We all know what it is, and whatever party label we bear, we all feel it. I rather think that in his presentation of it the hon. Member seems to express the idea that nationalism, so far as South Africa or anywhere where there is a coloured indigenous population is concerned, is a matter that concerns the usurping of white peoples. Surely there is a nationalism which these native peoples have a right to express and which is expressed in their opposition to the proposal to transfer the Protectorates to the Union Government. I hope that I am not misinterpreting the hon. Gentleman and that he recognises that the spirit of nationalism is something


that is not only resident in the white peoples, but that the coloured people have it also and have a right to express it and defend it; and that, as far as we have entered into a position of trusteeship in that respect, it is our duty as far as we can to preserve it.

Sir E. Grigg: The hon. Member interprets me correctly except in this respect. I do not deny that the African people have sentiments about themselves and their rights as strong as the white people. The only difference I would make is that nationalism as applied to civilised people is mixed up with a long record of literature, institutions and things of that kind. It is a deeper and broader nationalism than that which exists among uncivilised races. It is in many stages in different parts of the world and no one can doubt that it is growing among the African people.

Mr. Ammon: I appreciate what the hon. Member means. He refers to what in a sentence might be described as the cultural inheritance of the civilized peoples, but we have to recognise that there are tribal customs and things of that kind which must play a part with the natives in their expression of nationalism and which have to be considered. The only comment I would make upon the hon. Member's interesting speech is that when he drew a comparison between 1930 and 1937 he was not comparing like with like, because in 1930 Hitler had not arisen and there was an entirely different world. Our Government were to a large extent responsible for the emergence of the present temper by keeping Germany in such an inferior position that there was a revolution which brought about a position that has upset the balance of the world. I certainly do not agree with him—and I imagine those who are better qualified to speak upon finance than I am would support me—that at the moment capital in this country is piling up and cannot find uses. There are plenty of uses for it—it is finding its way into armament firms, for instance, though I wish it were being used more freely in other directions.
I will not spend time on the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) because the hon. Member who preceded me dealt with the particular point in it which I had noted when he commented on the very excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for

Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). He said that trusteeship means something more than a recognition of our own particular rights and that we must have regard to those who have some claim upon us. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and his somewhat patronising observation that he was glad to see that we on these benches show some interest in the Empire, I would say that we have never conceded that interest in the Empire is the prerogative of the Tory party. Certainly we take some interest in it, although our views with regard to its government and development may not accord with those of other people.
There are two particular questions which have been dwelt upon by almost every speaker, on which I wish to put one or two fresh points of view. I refer to the restrictive native laws in South Africa and the question of the transfer of the Protectorates. In connection with the first a serious position is arising in South Africa and a volume of criticism is growing up against the number of new offences created by legislation directed against the natives. Even a paper like the "Buluwayo Chronicle," which certainly could not be described as a negrophile organ, has expressed itself in fairly strong terms about some of these ordinances. In a recent article it said that a citizen of Southern Rhodesia could commit any one of more than 800 statutory offences and remarked:
While such a state of affairs is bad enough for the European, who might be expected to understand, if not to appreciate, the vagaries of those who exercise the power of government, it is a thousand times worse for the native, who must find himself sorely perplexed.
That is from a paper which hon. Members who know the Union will readily agree is not always given to expressing itself on the side of the natives. A leading article in the "Manchester Guardian" some time ago also drew attention to the difficulties arising in this connection. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is to follow me still pays some regard, as in the old days, to the "Manchester Guardian" and has not wholly gone over to the "Morning Post." The "Manchester Guardian" pointed out that no fewer than 62,241 cases were brought in the courts of first instance against natives for the infringement of a number of laws in the course of a single year. Other figures which I have are still more


startling. The House would do well to take note of the various offences that the natives can commit under the Native Taxation Act, the Possession of Native Liquor Ordinance, the Urban Areas Act, the municipal regulations and the iniquitous pass laws. In 1930 there were no fewer than 174,600 convictions of natives for offences, but in 1935 that number had risen to 243,890—that is, in a single year.
This state of affairs is having repercussions of an economic character, affecting shopkeepers in towns near the native reservations. The "Ghelo Times" of Friday, 18th June, has a report of a demonstration in the Selukwe Drill Hall there to protest against these native restrictions and ordinances. The chairman of that demonstration said he wondered whether the Government had anticipated what the immediate effect of them would be on trading stores in the small towns which were the centres of the native trade of the surrounding districts. He stated that some 300 natives or more used to come in daily for the lawful purpose of trading, but that natives now hestitated to come in because of the embarrassment caused by waiting at the offices for passes. Selukwe is a small town, and its experiences could be multiplied in the case of the larger towns. In that way there is a problem arising which we cannot afford to ignore, and the discontent will go on simmering and creating a sense of grievance among natives. As a recent writer in the Press has said, there is rather a tendency for a handful of Europeans in the midst of a vast mass of Africans to regard themselves as a Dominion rather than to have regard for the great indigenous population surrounding them.
The Minister has not denied that he was led to give his consent to the recent Registration Act partly, at least, by the failure of those on the other side to supply him with accurate information. In answer to a question which I addressed to him he admitted that, though it was not done with any serious intention, wrong information had been supplied to him, and that he had given an inaccurate answer when he said there had been no opposition to these laws in South Africa. There is strong evidence that there has been considerable opposition in Southern Rhodesia, and the Bishop of the diocese there has stated:

Most unfortunately the Secretary for the Dominions in England stated in the English House of Commons that there had been no objections to this Bill in this country. This statement must have been made upon inaccurate information supplied to him. There was and there still is very considerable criticism of this Act in this country to-day.
Seeing that the consent of the Home Government was obtained in such circumstances, there is every reason why there should be a review of the situation.
I turn from that subject to the position with regard to the Protectorates—Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland. The view of Mr. Pirow has been referred to by more than one speaker. I need not say more than that there is a very big gap between the views of that gentleman and the views of other prominent people in South Africa on the question of the paramountcy of native interests. There are two schools of thought in South Africa, as there probably are in this country, with regard to this matter. There is the school of assimilation and the school of differentiation. The school of assimilation has the idea that we should gradually lead the native peoples of Africa to a better appreciation and understanding of civilisation, so that they may play a very much larger part in the control and government of their own land. The differentiation school simply looks upon them as people who must be kept in an inferior position, who must be for ever hewers of wood and drawers of water, and have no right to take any very large part in the direction of affairs in their own country. We ought to give our whole-hearted support to the first school and endeavour to lead the natives towards a larger share in their own Government. It is emphatically laid down in Mr. Pirow's speech that the native should have no social or political equality with the white races. That is the sort of thing which makes it difficult to maintain good relationships with the natives, and to make them feel that we are quite sincere in all our professions and are dealing with them in a spirit of trusteeship.
I noticed in the "Manchester Guardian" a short time ago, I think it was on the 20th of this month, that the president of the Institute of the London Missionary Society wrote a letter pointing out the large measure of our responsibility for the position that has arisen about the


Protectorates. He stated that we had failed to give a definite lead as we ought to have done, that we had not given the support which we ought to have done to the weaker tribes, such as those in Swaziland and Basutoland, and that we therefore had a large measure of responsibility for the position in which we found ourselves. He pointed out, as did Professor MacMillan in a recent letter to the "New Statesman," that we have very distinct moral obligations towards those people which we ought to discharge, and that we have no right, on account of the agreement that has been entered into, to allow those people to be absorbed without being given every opportunity of expressing their wishes as to whether they would be absorbed by South Africa or would remain under the direct control of the Colonial Office in this country.
The position of Bechuanaland is very much stronger than that of the other States. They were an unconquered people, and very definite pledges were given to the chief as to the independence of his people being maintained by this Government. As other speakers have said, there is every reason why the Government should declare a very definite policy with respect to the natives, both upon the regulations and the ordinances that are made in the Union with regard to the Protectorates.
So far as has been ascertained, the natives are solidly against incorporation, and they maintain that even though they are poor they would rather maintain the freedom that they have. They look upon this country as the country which will protect them. I do not want to trouble hon. Members with too much detail, but I would remind them of the conversation which took place between the chiefs of Bechuanaland and the British representative a good many years ago, when he was Commissioner there, or held some responsibility as representing the British Government. It was made quite plain by Bechuanaland that they were not prepared, and did not want, to treat with the South African Government. They wanted to treat with the Great White Queen and with the British Government particularly. Such pledges have been given, and though they are not set down in black and white they are morally binding, and everything should be done to maintain the integrity of those people
Speaking in another place recently, Lord Strathcona gave three pledges which he said had been recognised by successive Governments; first, that Parliament would be given an opportunity of discussing and, if it wished, of disapproving, any proposals for transfer; secondly, that His Majesty's Government would not make any decision until both native and white populations had had full opportunity of expressing their views; and, thirdly, that His Majesty's Government could not support any proposal for transfer if it involved any impairment of such safeguards for natives as the Schedule of the South African Act was designed to secure. We therefore have the right to ask the Government for definite assurances that those pledges represent the declared policy and intention of the Government, and that they will not depart from them in any circumstances.

8.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): A discussion in this House of the affairs which come within the purview of the Dominions Office is somewhat rare. I do not flatter myself that the reason for that is that hon. Members could not find any points on which to criticise my own conduct of the office; it is due, I think, to the fact that relations among the nations in the British Commonwealth, by their own nature, and, if you will, despite Dominion Secretaries, conduct themselves without crisis and work, on the whole, smoothly, peacefully and successfully. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, credit for that comparatively happy state of affairs belongs to all parties in the House. Satisfaction at it is shared by all parties. It is something above our ordinary party warfare. One might compare the relations among the nations of the British Commonwealth to the calm waters of a lake, in comparison with the somewhat turbulent sea of international relations. Nevertheless, the calm waters are ruffled from time to time; sometimes even some ill political wind blows and whips them into waves. Hon. Members opposite have pointed this afternoon to some of those areas of disturbance within the Commonwealth.
The Debate has ranged over a very large number of subjects concerning a large number of countries, and I do not think hon. Members will expect me to follow them upon every one of the points


which they raised. If I were to do so, they would never get on to the discussion of those Post Office matters which the Opposition are anxious to raise. I would say a few sentences about a number of the questions raised and asked. For instance the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) mentioned relations with the Irish Free State and expressed the very strong desire that there might be a settlement of the points in dispute between the two countries. I can assure him that that desire is fully shared on this side of the House. I might say that so far as we are concerned, we are not disposed to be too rigid in our consideration of those questions. Other hon. Members raised matters associated with Southern Rhodesia. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) referred to discussions which have taken place relating to amalgamation between Southern and Northern Rhodesia, and he asked me what the position was. The position is that the matter is governed by the declaration of policy which was made on the subject in 1932. Before it was made, that declaration was the subject of consultation among all parties in the House. I do not think it would be proper to make any alteration in the attitude described there until consultation has taken place between the parties. As hon. Members know, Mr. Huggins, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, had discussions, when he was over here recently, with my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary and myself upon the question of amalgamation or closer association. All I can say is that we are giving careful consideration, to the points which he raised, but I am not in a position to make a further statement on the matter at the present time. Another hon. Member referred to recent native legislation in Southern Rhodesia, and in particular to the recent legislation upon native passes. He used some strong language to describe it, and said that it was reactionary and had worsened the status of the natives. Those descriptions are quite unjustified. That reactionary legislation was merely a consolidating Act, a re-enactment of legislation which has been in force in that Colony for a great many years. It is true that certain modifications of the existing legislation and practice were made, but they were not in the direction of reaction but of

relaxation of the law; concerning, for instance, trespass. I hope that one of the results of the new legislation will be a reduction in the number of convictions under these laws in Southern Rhodesia.
A number of Members spoke about the discussions at the Imperial Conference. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh commented on the discussion upon the nationality of married women, and he criticised His Majesty's Government for not having legislated by now in order to put women upon an absolute equality with men in this respect. Discussions on that matter took place during the Imperial Conference in London, and I can only say that the Government adopted exactly the same line as did the Labour Government during the Imperial Conference of 1930. We attach great importance to maintaining as much uniformity as possible in the law inside the Commonwealth governing what is called the common status. We stand on the position which we occupy to-day because the existing arrangements are those which preserve the greatest amount of uniformity among the laws of the nations in the British commonwealth.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that there have been considerable changes in the world since 1930, and will he say whether they were taken into account?

Mr. MacDonald: All sorts of things were taken into account during the discussions at the Conference. The Government were ruled by the principle which ruled the Labour Government in 1930 that we must maintain uniformity in this matter. Nothing has happened which would justify any alteration of that principle. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) expressed his disappointment that the Resolution with regard to shipping had not gone further, or had not gone very much further, than the Resolution on the subject which had been passed in 1923. Although we did not succeed in getting what might be called a stronger Resolution on the subject, His Majesty's Government do, of course, attach the very greatest importance to this question of British shipping, and we are continuing our consultation with Dominion Governments on the matter, with a view in


practice to helping shipping as much as we possibly can.
I come now to the questions which have taken up the greater part of the Debate. The first is the question of government in Newfoundland. The people of Newfoundland boast that their Island is the oldest British Colony, and it is right that Members of this House should show a very keen sympathy with the affairs of that Island. We have been reminded that, when the Island was faced with extreme financial difficulties a few years ago, the Parliament in St. John's petitioned that the Dominion Constitution of the Island should be suspended, and to-day its Government is in the hands of the Governor and six appointed Commissioners. It is sometimes suggested at Question Time in this House, and it has been suggested again to-day, that these Commissioners are showing incompetence. It is sometimes suggested that conditions in the Island are worse than they were. [Interruption.] That has been suggested several times from below the Gangway, and sometimes by hon. Members above the Gangway. It is suggested that conditions are actually worse than they were when the Commissioners started their work four years ago. This afternoon it has been implied that the position in the Island has not greatly improved in these four years. I have not time to go into the matter in a comprehensive way, but I should like to try to say sufficient to remove from impartial minds that wholly wrong impression.
I think we are all aware that, when the commission went out to Newfoundland, the Island was facing a very precarious economic and financial position. The first work of the commission had to be a work of salvage, to stop collapse and to start to build up a greater prosperity in the Island again. I would claim that the Commissioners, with the sort of new model Civil Service which they have created, have performed that first work of salvage. Let me give one or two examples of the improvement which has taken place during these four years, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Let me take first of all the example of revenue. Under the commission, taxation has been reduced; customs duties, for instance, have been considerably re-

duced; and yet, despite that reduction in taxation, year after year, under commission government, there has been an increase in the revenue. In the year before the commission took over, the revenue amounted to something just over 8,000,000 dollars. Last year, despite the reductions in taxation, that revenue of just over 8,000,000 dollars had swollen to something just under 11,000,000 dollars. There has been an increase of nearly 3,000,000 dollars, or 35 per cent., in four years.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not attach very great importance to these revenue figures. He asks, what have the commission done with regard to improving the actual well-being of the Islanders concerned, with regard to increasing their standard of life? Under commission government, the standard of living of the people of Newfoundland has been gradually raised. Let me take the example of the poorest people in the Island, those families who, during the winter at any rate, and, unfortunately, many of them, even now in the summer, are in receipt of relief. I am not going to pretend that the standard of living of these families on relief is high; I am certainly not going to say that we would not like to see a higher standard of living; but, if we are to pass a just judgment on what the commission has been able to do, we must compare their achievement or their lack of achievement with the hard facts of the situation which they discovered when they arrived there four years ago, and not compare what they have done with some ideal standard of living which may be floating in the imaginations of hon. Members living in this much more comfortable island. The fact is that during the last three years the Commissioners have been paying those thousands of families on relief a higher rate of relief than they have ever been paid before. In the city of St. John's, for instance, the higher rate amounts to an increase of 25 per cent. on anything that they received before.

Mr. Gallacher: How much is it?

Mr. MacDonald: I admit that it does not represent as high a standard of living as we would like to see, but it is something higher than they have ever known before in the history of the Island, and that is a measure of improvement which the hon. Member and others are apt to deny has


taken place under this commission government.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think the right hon. Gentleman should give the figures.

Mr. MacDonald: I do not want to be drawn into too great detail, but it has been suggested from the other side of the House that no improvement in the standard of living has taken place, and I say that, whatever the figures are—and it is difficult to give figures, because most of the payments are in kind, as hon. Members know—whatever the standard is, it is 25 per cent. higher than it was before. To take another example of the improvement which has taken place, there has been a certain improvement in industry and in employment in the Island under the Commission of Government. The ships and men are going to the fishing this year with greater confidence; in the forests there has been a steady increase in the number of men at work, both logging and in the paper mills; while, so far as the mines are concerned, they are working to absolute capacity, and the miners are being paid higher wages under Commission government than they have ever been paid before.
Let me give an impression of the change that has taken place in these four years by quoting the figures of those who were on relief in June of the year before the Commissioners' Government came into office and the figures after four years of that government. In June, 1933, there were on relief in the Island 73,738 men, women and children. By June, 1937, that figure had sunk to 42,992. I am not going to suggest that the Commissioners are complacent about the improvement, but it cannot be denied that considerable improvement has taken place, whether it is world recovery or whatever it may be, and I do not think any impartial person would deny that the Commission of Government have a good deal of responsibility for this improvement. I do not think the Island would have enjoyed anything like it if the old form of government had continued without intervention by the Commissioners. The Commissioners recognise that this is only a beginning. They have got over the stage of salvage. During these first three or four years they have been studying the problem and working out a long-term policy which might be applied in every department of activity in the Island so as to reinvigorate the

whole community and set it really on its feet again. An outline of that policy was given in a speech by the Finance Commissioner, Mr. Penson, a fortnight ago. That speech is now in the Library of the House of Commons and I commend it to the study of Members who, quite properly, recognise our responsibility in this matter of making Newfoundland a self-supporting country again.
I should like to pass to the question of the South African Territories. Again, hon. Members have offered certain criticism of our charge in those Territories. It has been suggested that we have pursued a policy of stagnation, that we are somewhat indifferent to the plight of these comparatively poor countries and that we have neglected them. I should like to say a few things in an endeavour to show that that charge, whether made here or in South Africa or elsewhere is really unjustified. I am not going to pretend that there are not very great economic difficulties in those Territories. During the last decade they have faced some grim years. They are not the happy possessors of any considerable mineral wealth to buttress their well-being. They are primary producers on a comparatively modest scale. Their markets are limited. They have been hit as hard by the economic depression as any country has been and, in addition, they have had other scourges. They have had drought, they have had locusts, and they have had foot-and-mouth disease amongst their cattle. If we had pursued a policy of stagnation and neglect, their plight to-day would indeed have been hopeless, but we have not pursued that policy. The taxpayer in this country has stood by these three comparatively poor Territories, and has come to their rescue and assisted them consistently through this period.
In order to refute those who suggest that there has been neglect, I should like to quote the very considerable figures of the financial assistance that has been given in recent years to two of those Territories. Basutoland is a country with happier natural conditions than the other two. It has been able to keep self-supporting, with balanced budgets, during the years of depression, and there have been no grants-in-aid of Basutoland from this country. Swaziland has had a deficit for the last eight years and has been


in receipt of a grant-in-aid from the Treasury during those years. The total sum that has been given is £307,000. Bechuanaland has been in receipt of a grant-in-aid for the last five years. The total moneys that have gone to Bechuanaland in that way amount to £385,000. Again, in the current year we have put into the Estimates a sum of something over £100,000 for those two Territories. But that is not the whole of the story. Hon. Members opposite have suggested, quite rightly—I entirely agree with them—that we ought not to be content with simply keeping the noses so to speak of these countries above water. We ought to be pursuing a development policy. The Government have been pursuing for the last few years an active policy of development in all three Territories with a view to trying to give them a better foundation on which to build security and prosperity. We started by sending Sir Alan Pim on a series of journeys through the territories to survey the whole field and make recommendations. He has made many recommendations for development works, and his proposals are being carried out steadily. In the case of Basutoland he found that its well-being was being undermined by soil erosion. He proposed an ambitious scheme for combating that soil erosion, and we are carrying it out at a cost of £160,000.

Mr. Ammon: Does not all that the right hon. Gentleman is telling us bear out the charges that we have brought? Sir Alan Pim was sent in 1932 because the country had been allowed to get into such a dreadful condition that something had to be done.

Mr. MacDonald: I do not want to quarrel about comparatively ancient history. I am saying that for some years past we have been pursuing, and are pursuing to-day, a policy of active and comprehensive development in all three Territories. Sir Alan Pim made it clear that a very serious situation was arising in Bechuanaland owing to inadequate water supplies, and he made proposals which are being carried out at a cost of £140,000. In addition to the enormous sums which we have paid out in grants-in-aid, there has been approved by the Colonial Development Fund Committee an expenditure of £566,330 on development works in the three Territories.
That is not all that the Government are doing with regard to development in these Territories. I can only give examples of the kind of work which we are doing, but we should do this, for instance. We should see that the administrations have not only adequate funds for carrying out the works which are necessary, but also that they are staffed with officers who are capable, and who have qualities and are able to perform a great work of government. With regard to that, we have made certain new arrangements comparatively recently. Men in these Territories ought to be as good as any men in our Colonial Services, and with a view to that we have increased salary rates, pension rates and passage moneys for officers in these Territories, and, in addition, vacancies which occur—and which have occurred for some time—are now being filled by officers of our Colonial administration services, either transferred from elsewhere or else appointed by the recruitment officer at the Colonial Office and the Colonial Appointments Committee. We do not plead guilty to the charge of neglecting these Territories. We have done our duty by the Territories, and we shall go on doing our duty as long as we are responsible for the government of the Territories.
That brings me to say a few words on the question of the possible transfer of the government of the Territories, or of one or other of the Territories, from the United Kingdom to the Union of South Africa. That question has raised a great deal of discussion and of controversy, and I should like to try to set the problem in its true perspective. First, do not let us forget what has been done by this House in the past. In 1909 Parliament passed the South Africa Act, and there is contained in that Act a certain Section—Section 151—which refers to these three Territories. I will read the Section:
The King, with the advice of the Privy Council, may, on addresses from the Houses of Parliament of the Union, transfer to the Union the government of any territories, other than the territories administeréd by the British South Africa Company, belonging to or under the protection of His Majesty, and inhabited wholly or in part by natives, and upon such transfer the Governor-General in Council may undertake the government of such territory upon the terms and conditions embodied in the Schedule to this Act.
The Schedule is a very long document, and contains important provisions regarding the administration of, and legislation


for, the territories if transfer should take place. That Section 151 and its Schedule remain a part of the Act.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the Statute of Westminster any bearing upon it?

Mr. MacDonald: It has a bearing on certain parts of the Schedule, and I certainly agree that, if transfer were contemplated, the general scheme of the Schedule should be observed, and anything which is in the Schedule and which is not appropriate to the present constitutional position should be a matter for discussion, so that some other appropriate safeguards with regard to these matters could be substituted. All I say is that that Section and the Schedule attached to it remain a part of the South Africa Act. They have not been repealed; they are not going to be repealed. [Interruption.] I did not interrupt hon. Members. Really, this is a matter which, as I say, has aroused discussion and controversy, but I do think that there is some value in laying before the House what, I hope, is a perfectly detached and impartial statement of the important aspects of this question. We must not forget that Section. We must attach proper importance to it. We have to recognise, if I may quote from a speech made by General Hertzog in 1935, that that Section has a meaning and intention. We have to recognise that the suggestion which is being made by the South African authorities, that transfer should take place, rests, in the first place, on that Section of the Act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament.
The second consideration is that that Section was passed upon a perfectly clear understanding regarding certain other matters. There were discussions on the question while the Bill was passing through Parliament, and during those discussions the responsible Minister gave two very important undertakings—first of all, that transfer would not take place until the wishes of the local populations had been very carefully considered; secondly, that transfer would not take place until Parliament had had the fullest opportunity of expressing its views. These pledges have been repeated from time to time, and the Government regard them

as most solemn pledges. We abide by them without any qualification at all. I was pressed the other day, at question time, and one or two hon. Members have tried to press me again to-day, to interpret what is meant by the phrase about "consulting the local populations, European and native." I was pressed that I should state that that pledge meant that transfer could not take place unless the native populations consented to it. It would be improper for me to endeavour to use language regarding that pledge which would either contract the pledge or expand it. I do not think that the House need feel in the least dissatisfied with the position as it is left by these pledges. May I remind the House that there is an indication in the White Paper of two years ago, in the aide memoire, of the spirit in which this aspect of the matter is regarded not only in this country, but in the Union also. That aide memoire was approved by General Hertzog, and it says that we, the United Kingdom Government, believe that the Union Government would not wish transfer to take place unless the inhabitants of the territories, native as well as European—and then there is the quotation from General Hertzog himself—"are prepared and desire to come in."
Quite apart from that indication, the House can rest satisfied in the position, because of the second pledge which says that transfer cannot take place except after Parliament has had the fullest opportunity of expressing its views. If I were asked to suggest a sort of time-table it would work like this. If transfer were contemplated of a territory or territories, first of all consultation would take place with the local inhabitants. After that Parliament would have its opportunity of expressing its views, and it would really rest with the Government and Parliament to say whether the result of the consultation had been such as to justify transfer taking place.
Since Section 151 of the Act and these pledges were first given in the House a great deal of history has attached to this question. This is not the time to go into that history. I come straight to the Agreement of two years ago, which governs the situation to-day, and I claim that the agreement which was reached between my predecessor and General Hertzog was conceived in the spirit of Section 151, plus the pledges


associated with it. The White Paper says:
The policy of both Governments for the next few years should be directed to bringing about a situation in which if transfer were to become a matter of practical politics it could be effected with the full acquiescence of the populations concerned.
The Government are bound by that policy. The Government are in honour bound to play their part in carrying that policy out. We have been anxious, and we are anxious, to do everything that we properly can to implement that policy.
Certain suggestions have been made, and suggestions have been made in South African newspapers which have come to me in the last day or two, to the effect that the United Kingdom Government have not been wholehearted in implementing that policy during the last two years, that we failed to do something that we promised to do or that we ought to have done, in order to implement that policy. I cannot accept that view. I could go into it in detail. I could tell the House in detail what we have done—it is public property—in the last two years, and I believe that I could convince the House that we have carried out our part of the policy loyally; but I do not propose to do that. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to create unnecessary difficulties in this matter than if I were to stir up a public, long-range controversy as to what has been happening in the past.
General Hertzog and I agreed that I should communicate with him on the whole question, explaining the position of His Majesty's Government, in an endeavour to see what further steps were practicable for the carrying out of the 1935 policy to the full. We are not contemplating any new policy. We contemplate a further implementing of the existing agreed policy. That communication is now being drafted, and will be sent to General Hertzog very shortly. It will, no doubt, be followed by discussions between the two Governments, and there, I think, we should allow the matter to remain at the moment. I should only like to say this in conclusion, that neither in this country nor in the Union are these Territories regarded simply as pawns in some game between the Union of South Africa and the United Kingdom. We must consider not simply the interests of the Union or the interests of the United Kingdom. We have to consider in this

matter very seriously indeed the interests of the population, both European and native, in the Territories concerned.
I am afraid that I have spoken at considerable length, and there are other questions which were raised on which I should like to say something, but I will conclude by saying this. We have lived through an historic Imperial year. Their Majesty's Coronation was attended by representatives of their peoples from every quarter of the globe. It was followed immediately by the Imperial Conference. I had intended to say something about the Imperial Conference, but I will not detain the House at this late hour. Perhaps what I might have said has been rendered unnecessary by the admirable speech which was delivered on the Imperial Conference by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). I agree with almost every word he said as to the significance and the value of the Imperial Conference of 1937. I believe that we can all feel satisfied that inside the British Commonwealth of Nations we are demonstrating that friendly co-operation between free and equal nations, and the peaceful settlement of any differences which may arise between them are not empty ideals, but can, in fact, be attained by mankind.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I rise to make an attempt which I fear is not an easy one, to endeavour to switch the attention of the House from Dominion affairs to matters concerned with the Post Office, matters of domestic importance. I think it will be generally agreed that it is a matter for regret that the Post Office and matters concerned, with that Department have been deferred to such a late hour. Nevertheless, those of us who have any knowledge of the Post Office are very appreciative of the work that is done by that Department and of the exceptional services rendered to the community as a whole. I would ask the House and the Postmaster-General to give attention to a few points arising from the Report of the Bridgeman Committee of five years ago. Those members of the House who have read that report will be aware that the recommendations of that Committee when adopted by the Government introduced very large reforms into the Post Office administration. The whole organis-


ation underwent a complete change. As far as I am aware, up to now the House has not had a report as to how far those recommendations have been put into operation. It is, of course, known that a number of regions have been set up and that regional organisations have been established, but the House would appreciate further information on that matter.
We should like to know what effect the new organisation has had, whether in the view of the Postmaster-General it has been advantageous or the reverse. Judging from the little information at my disposal, I should say that it has been advantageous. I should like to know how many regional organisations have been established, and where they are operative. It would also be valuable if we could be told how much remains of the report to be adopted. There was one important recommendation—in paragraph 120—in which they suggested that the aim of the Department should be so to adapt itself as to enable the provincial staffs at any time to be able to take the place of the staff at headquarters, and vice versa. They went further and suggested that there should be at times an interchange of members of the staffs so that, to use ordinary parlance, those in charge would not have the mentality of the parish pump, but would gain sufficient knowledge by this interchange to appreciate what was taking place and the requirements of the country as a whole. Prior to this report there was a concentration upon provincial establishments as against the secretariat at headquarters.
Another important recommendation was that which dealt with the financial relations of the Post Office and the Treasury. The Committee recommended that all revenue derived by the Post Office over £11,500,000 should be at the disposal of the Postmaster-General for improvements. If this money was not required at the moment a separate fund was to be set up and the money used as required to effect improvements. I should like to know what has been done in this matter. It was also suggested that after this proposal had been in progress for three years revision should take place between the Treasury and the Postmaster-General. I think this is important, inasmuch as it permits the Postmaster-General to stake out certain claims. He should know the requirements of his Department and be

able to anticipate reasonable improvements in emoluments and wages of his staff, and if he is not prepared to stake out his claim I fear that the Treasury will continue to make demands which are not quite reasonable. I speak here from experience in having to beard the lion in his den in support of certain small improvements which were desirable. I had to go to the Treasury and state the case. That ought not to be.
I feel that the Postmaster-General, as the head of a Department of this kind, ought to have sufficient financial latitude to make improvements even in respect of wages and hours when he is convinced that it is reasonable. That has not been the case in the past, and I am hoping that as a result of the adoption of these recommendations, the Postmaster-General will have a greater measure of freedom than I and my chief had when we were at the Post Office. Let me pass on to the question of auxiliary postmen. I spent some 12 to 18 months devising a scheme whereby it was hoped ultimately to eliminate auxiliary postmen. We were confronted with this position. Auxiliary postmen were in receipt of wages so low that we had to admit ourselves that it was an inducement to them to be dishonest. They were dependent on shoemaking and other similar jobs, and came into the Post Office to deliver letters on certain days. Even in London auxiliary postmen were in many ways on part-time duty. A scheme was worked out by which auxiliary postmen would be eliminated and I should like to know how far the scheme has progressed and whether auxiliary postmen still exist to any degree.
Then there is to what is to all intents and purposes a new invention, the automatic telephone system. I do not know whether my information is correct, but I understand that recruiting for the telephone service is none too easy just now. I have observed quite a number of advertisements in the newspapers for young women as telephone operators. I have made inquiries and I find that a large number of young women are quite disposed to take service with the Department if they could see a reasonable possibility of advancement. I understand that the inauguration of the automatic telephone service has made their chance of advancement very small. I am told that


it is not uncommon now in London and other large cities for women to have been in the service for 29 and 30 years before they have received any promotion. If that be the case, one can understand and appreciate that there is reluctance on the part of young women to enter such a service. It occurs to me that there might be a way out of the difficulty. It would be worth considering, at any rate, whether the women who are advancing in years could be transferred from the telephone service to duties in other parts of the establishment. That would at least have the advantage of showing young women who are desirous of entering the service that, in spite of the machine making advancement less possible, the Department is prepared to make ways and means for them to get a reasonable advance.
The Post Office is very fortunate in that a large number of its employés, possessing fertile minds, introduce inventions or make suggestions that ultimately lead to vast improvements in the Department. A committee considers the inventions and suggestions, and is empowered to award compenation for them. Hon. Members have recently had circulated to them correspondence outlining a grievance of two Post Office employés, one of them a clerical officer, against the Department and also against the Treasury, and they claim jointly to have been responsible for an invention which brought about the party-line service. I appeal to the Postmaster-General to investigate that case. I will not mention any names in the House, but I am prepared to supply the right hon. and gallant Gentleman with the names of the people concerned. If this is true, and if this sort of thing is likely to continue, it will stultify the attempts of those who might introduce inventions or make suggestions which would be advantageous to the Department. Up to the present the Department has benefited considerably from the suggestions and inventions of its employés. I will give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a reference number which will give him a clue to what I am referring to—the reference is 52051/34.
A short time ago there was a discussion in the House on the subject of nutrition, and the British Broadcasting Corporation, in its report, gave an analysis

of the discussion. Evidently, the wife of a postman who had recently entered the service of the Department had been listening in to the broadcast, and I have received from her a letter in which she refers to the wages of her husband, which are £2 14s. a week. The man is an ex-service man, and his wife says that he had to pass a Civil Service examination in order to enter the service and had to pay 2s. 6d. for the certificate resulting from the examination. She says that he is on split duty, which means that he has to make the journey from his home to the post office twice a day, and she explains that the result is that from his wages, after expenses have been deducted, 12s. 6d. remains to feed both of them. The woman adds that fortunately they have no children.
I mentioned a few minutes ago that I was pleased that the Postmaster-General is to be given a surplus over and above that which is taken by the Treasury. I am pleased for this reason. I know that an outside committee determines the wages, but I appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to appreciate what this means to these people. Considering the reports of the police courts and the comments made by magistrates concerning wages paid by the Department, and considering that when magistrates go as far as to say that the Department is not paying wages sufficient to enable men to be honest, I appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to use his good offices to see that there is an improvement at least in the wages of the lower-paid workers.

Sir Robert Tasker: Did the hon. Gentleman say that 12s. 6d. was left for rent?

Mr. Viant: After meeting expenses, there was left 12s. 6d. to keep the husband and wife. The woman says that fortunately ahey have no family.

Mr. Montague: Did the expenses include rent?

Mr. Viant: Rent was part of the expenses. I pass now to another very important matter. I understand that the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General have been supplied with the facts which I am about to relate. I have in my possession a letter from a man stating


the case for his son who was dismissed from the service for suspected dishonesty. The Postmaster-General might have done the right thing, but the House ought to know about this matter. We are responsible for these things equally as much as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am speaking as one who has had to do these things, so that I can appreciate the position in which the Postmaster-General finds himself. It often happens that an employé is suspected of dishonesty. The Department is convinced that he or she alone was responsible, but the person has not been caught red-handed, and all the evidence available is circumstantial. The Postmaster-General, in the public interest, feels that he has no alternative but to dismiss the employé.
The case to which I am referring happened in a neighbouring constituency to mine. The editor of the newspaper which circulates in that district has been approached by the aggrieved man, and the man's case has been published in the newspaper. He was dismissed six years ago, and ever since he and his family have been living on public assistance. The editor of the newspaper wrote a leading article on the subject, explaining how unfair it was for any man or woman to be dismissed from the public service without having a fair trial. A civil servant when he enters the service sacrifices some of the rights which the ordinary citizen enjoys, and that is inevitable. This man has no redress unless he can get permission from the Privy Council to appeal to the King. It is His Majesty's Post Office and this man is an employé of the King.
I wish to offer a suggestion which if it could be adopted, would considerably allay feeling among the general public and remove a large amount of the anxiety existing at present among the employés of the Post Office. Would it not be possible, in a case of this kind, to appoint a committee consisting of a trade union representative, a person with judicial experience and another independent person, to consider the facts and give an impartial judgment upon them. That would relieve the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General of a great deal of anxiety. It would give a measure of confidence to the employés and, what is more important, a man or woman who was removed from the post of duty in such circumstances would have the assurance that three impartial persons had sifted the

matter thoroughly. I think that is a constructive suggestion and is worthy of consideration, and I hope it will receive the consideration which it deserves. I have here the Press cuttings to which I have referred, and I shall be pleased to hand them over to the Postmaster-General in order that he may know the exact case to which I refer.
I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me for raising again the vexed question of overtime. I do not think the Postmaster-General can have been aware that overtime was being worked to such an extent in the Post Office. I feel sure that if it were his own business he would not allow such conditions to obtain. When he realises that in a period when there are still so many unemployed one department of the Post Office alone, the engineering department, has worked 4,000,000 odd hours of overtime, I feel sure that the Postmaster-General will take care that such a thing does not happen in the future. But what I took exception to even more than the actual working of the overtime was this: I asked whether it was the custom of the Department when employés were seeking improvements in their conditions, to reply to the effect that overtime, in addition to other conditions, ought to be taken into consideration in the assessment of wages. I thought that was a deplorable statement, and when I put a question in the House the Postmaster-General replied that he was fully aware of and endorsed the statement made by the chief of the department. When I put another question as to whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agreed that overtime should be taken into consideration as an advantage in relation to wages, he endorsed that view.
We feel that overtime ought never to be worked except in circumstances of exceptional stress, and that at no time should the reward of overtime be taken into consideration when employés are asking for improvements in their conditions. Instead of encouraging overtime it should be the policy of the department to wipe out overtime and share the work over as large a number as possible. In order that the Postmaster-General may appreciate my point as to the inconsistency of his replies I have preserved the questions and answers on both occasions. I do not wish to be unfair, but I feel that those replies were prepared for the


right hon. and gallant Gentleman and that he did not compare the one with the other. If he had done so I am sure the inconsistency would at once have revealed itself to him. I hope we shall have a statement this evening showing that overtime if not done away with has been considerably reduced, and I hope we shall be told the number of extra people who have received employment as a result of that reduction in overtime.
I found that this method of working overtime was not confined to the engineering department. I found that in the money order department and at Kensington overtime was being worked and that in fact it was general throughout all departments. I then inquired as to the number of days lost through sickness aggravated by overtime. The health statistics speak for themselves. I know something about the effect of overtime on the health of working people and it was because of my personal experience that, having ascertained the prevalence of overtime, I immediately raised the question of the health statistics. One has only to study the figures produced by the committee of research into industrial fatigue to realise the effect of long hours on the health of workpeople. There is no gainsaying the fact that to allow overtime, except under exceptional stress, is a bad policy.
I now come to the question of the 40-hour week. I understand from the Press that the Postmaster-General has received a deputation of Post Office employés on this question. I think it just as well that the House should make up its mind that we can no longer defer this question. The reduction of hours of labour has to be faced now. A reduction of hours is inevitable and it should be welcome, if only as a palliative of unemployment. It may be said that at the moment the number of unemployed is going down. But as sure as to-morrow's sun will rise they will go up again, and if we are going to palliate that problem at all it will be by a reduction in the hours of labour. If any Department of State should be giving a lead it is the Post Office. The Post Office can take pride in the fact that wherever it has been possible to introduce machinery to ease the physical exertion of the employés the Department has always availed itself of that opportunity. No one can walk

through Mount Pleasant or any of the sorting offices to-day without being astounded at the enormous amount of machinery in use. It has meant that in spite of there being an increased amount of business done by the Department the number of employés has not gone up to the extent it would have done had the machinery not been brought in.
I have taken the trouble to obtain a few figures which will enlighten the House on this point. Take the deliveries of letters and printed papers. The figures I give are in millions. In 1922–23 the total was 5,455. In 1928–29 it was 6,230. In 1935–36 it was 7,345. Telegrams show a reduction, but not to the degree they were falling. In 1922–23 the figure was 79,572; In 1928–29, 72,491; and in 1935–36, 65,214. Telephone calls numbered in 1922–23, 730,156; in 1928–29, 1,265,504; and in 1935–36, 1,820,664. There you have an increase in letters and papers of 34.6 per cent.; a decrease in telegrams of 18 per cent.; and an increase of telephone calls of 149 per cent. The increase in the staff has been 17.1 per cent. The percentage of increase as a whole, if the three percentage changes be combined in the same proportion as the wages cost of the three branches—75 per cent., 8⅓ per cent.; and 16⅔ per cent.—the resulting percentage increase of traffic as a whole since 1922–23 is 49.3 per cent. The staff has increased by 17.1 per cent. The volume of traffic per head of the staff increased in 13 years by 27.5 per cent.
This is the important point here. If the staff had increased by the same percentage as the traffic it would have totalled in 1936 about 313,000. These facts are undeniable. No one can deny the advantages which have accrued to the Department as the result of the introduction of all this machinery, and when we look round in the industrial world in general we see the same thing operating there. Instead of the right hon. Gentleman waiting for private employers to give a lead in this direction his Department should show the way. The Government should be giving a lead, and if we were in office we should do this now. It is the only way in which we are going to help the unemployment problem. I am not saying this because we are in opposition. I am firmly convinced that sooner or later We shall be


in office and we shall be called on to do it. But employers in general have got to adopt this policy and the wisest employers are adopting it. I am not asking the Postmaster-General for what has not already been done in some other countries. In New Zealand there is a 40-hour week of five days. That does not mean that they have letters delivered on only five days. The employés work a 40-hour week of five days, but it is so organised that the service is continuous. Australia has a 44-hour week of five days, which is to become 40 within a reasonable time. In many parts of the United States the 40–hour week is operating in the postal service. In South Africa 39 hours are worked in many of the large towns.
Quite a number of private employers are showing the Government how to do this. The Leverhulme people are giving a lead. They have a five-day week. The Colman's Mustard people are hot enough to give the 40-hour week and without wage reductions. Boots are giving a five-day week of 42½ hours. Here perhaps the Postmaster-General will try to score a point. He will try to show that Post Office employés generally are doing but a 42-hour week. The Postmaster-General will say: "What about the cost? "Surely, a Department with a revenue of at least £12,000,000 can find ways and means of spending a few thousands for the purpose of initiating the 40-hour week. It has its repercussions, in that you will give greater opportunities for more young men and young women to come into the service in that you will spread the work over a larger number of people. I feel sure that if there was anyone from this side sitting on that side and responsible at the moment, he would take a measure of pride in having the opportunity to initiate the 40-hour week and to show private employers that the Government realise the importance of the problem and are prepared to show the way.
In case the Postmaster-General should make the point that, generally speaking, they are doing a 42-hour week at present, I want to reply at once that if the hours are only 42 when the reliefs are taken into consideration, why quibble about giving another two hours? It is not going to cost us very much more to give two hours all the way round, for that is

what it reduces itself to, and, what is more important, if the Government are far-sighted, they will see that this will take quite a number of people off the labour market who would otherwise be unemployed. It is grossly unfair for any employer, whether it be the State or a private employer, to enjoy the whole of the results of improved machinery. A Government Department may very well show that where improvements are effected by the introduction of machinery, those improvements and the results accruing therefrom should be enjoyed by the whole of the persons concerned. I hope the Postmaster-General will let us know where he stands in this regard and that he will not put up a stone-wall attitude and say that it cannot be done, for I am persuaded that, if he is not prepared to do it, we shall have to speed up the day when we shall go over there and show how it is to be done.

9.38 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Major, Tryon): I should like to begin by saying that I think it is a pity that, through no fault of mine, this great service, with enormous sums, both in revenue and expenditure, at stake, with the employment of over a quarter of a million people, and with a service touching every human being in this country, should be discussed only towards the end of the next to the last day of a very long Session. I cannot help feeling' that if there was all that keenness behind some of the references which the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) has made, the Labour party might have raised the question earlier in the Session and not left it to a time when the House is not very well attended on either side and when unfortunately we have not the opportunity of presenting the whole case for the Post Office. At the same time, I should like to thank the hon. Member personally for the service which, if I may say so, he has rendered by bringing up the work of this Department, with which he was associated for many years. I feel that all who have ever been associated with the Post Office always continue to take an interest and a pride in its working, and I am glad to see opposite me three ex-Ministers who have been associated with it. Therefore, I would begin by thanking the hon. Member sincerely for bringing up this question.
I propose to deal in turn with all the points which he has raised, and perhaps he will allow me, in my desire to present a general statement on the position of the Post Office, to take his points as they come in the course of a general statement. The hon. Member asked us about the results of the Bridgeman Committee, and I should like to say how very much I think the country owes to the late Lord Bridgeman, to Lord Plender, and to Lord Cadman who sat on that Committee. The results of that Committee have worked wonders at the Post Office, and I am glad to be able to assure hon. Members that, point by point, its recommendations have been adopted. There were two very big matters in their recommendations. The first, of course, was with reference to finance. At present we pay to the Treasury a fixed sum of £10,750,000, which sum has again been fixed for a further three years, and as a result we are left more free than in the old days when the hon. Member was at the Post Office, so that if we have a surplus, we are able to use it for improvements, whether for the staff, or for the public. If some of the concessions which we may make are wisely made, in the long run the money comes back to us and we are able to move forward again with further concessions. That is just what has been happening in the last few years.
The second point which the hon. Member raised was with reference to the regions. The position is that two regions have been set up under the scheme, the Scottish Region, with headquarters at Edinburgh, and the North-Eastern Region, with headquarters at Leeds. I have, of course, visited those headquarters and inquired on the spot to see how they are getting on, and I know from personal knowledge that there have been staff exchanges between headquarters and the different regions and outlying portions of the Post Office, both inward and outward, so that headquarters do keep in touch with the outlying portions and vice versa. One of the most useful portions of this scheme of regions is the great advantage which it gives in what is perhaps the most urgent of our problems, namely, telephone development. At the present moment we are carrying the principle of regionalisation in the form of telephone areas beyond the two regions which I have mentioned,

so that the principle of dealing with matters on the spot between the different people concerned is extending already beyond the two regions to which I have referred. Then, of course, the Post Office Fund, to which the hon. Member referred, has been set up. As a matter of fact last year we took £100,000 out of it. It is a reserve.
I should like, first and foremost, to say—and I am sure that hon. Members opposite will be glad that I can say it—that this has been definitely a record year for the Post Office, and particularly in connection with telephones. But I should like to state that the biggest part of the Post Office, in volume of work, in financial importance, and in size of staff, is the postal service. There, in the last year—I am giving it in figures instead of in percentages—letters and parcels were up by 250,000,000, which is an increase about double the usual increase from year to year. That, I think, is satisfactory. The actual number of letters and parcels—and the hon. Member gave figures which as far as I know were the same—at the present moment is 7,750,000,000 a year. A very important part of the postal service is the air service. In these islands, of course, there is not the same scope as elsewhere, because the distances are not great. Between some of the large towns there is not very much gain, but when it comes to the use of the air across the water, as, for instance, to Orkney, or to Belfast, then there is a great gain.
I am glad to be able to say that for what one may call the internal air service, that is to say, within these islands, 375 tons were sent last year, which is an increase of 24 per cent. It is when we come to the Empire and to the more distant places that we begin to realise the full advantages of the air service, more particularly now that greater distances can be traversed in safety and now also that the flying boats are coming to the assistance of this service in such a remarkable way. It was only last month that I had the privilege of taking part in the inauguration of a great Empire air mail scheme. It is one under which what is called the all-up service is involved, "All-up" means that to the particular district concerned all the first-class mail goes by air as a matter of course, without any surcharge and without any special labels. It is simply posted in the ordinary red


letter-box and goes as a matter of course by air. That principle was started to South Africa about a month ago. On that occasion the particular flying boat got there in six days, and it is hoped before long to extend the service to India and Malaya and sometime next year to Australia as well. That, I think, is a remarkable development.
To East Africa by these flying boats there are at present three services a week, and to South Africa two services a week. The charge is 1½d. per half-ounce, and I once more appeal—and I hope hon. Members will help me—to the public to make every day a mail day and not to keep their letters for South Africa until the end of the week but to keep on posting them throughout the week and so avail themselves of these additional facilities and avoid overloading the boat which starts at the end of the week. At present the service reaches Kisumu in three or four days and Cape Town in six to seven days. Later on it is hoped, with increased night-flying facilities and when they are more fully developed, to accelerate up to the point where Cape Town can be reached in 100 hours and Sydney in seven days. That may be some way off, as this remarkable acceleration will depend on the development of night flying. I should like, before I leave the subject of all-up air mails, to say that some months ago we started this form of service to Scandinavia, and I am happy to announce to the House—and this is an announcement made for the first time—that we are hoping shortly to extend the all-up service to Germany and Switzerland.
I come to telegraphs, to which the hon. Member made allusion. The position is this. The charge was 1s. and it has been reduced to 6d. Before the reduction the number of telegrams was going down at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. Since the reduction to 6d. the number of telegrams has in two years gone up by 43 per cent. At the same time it would not be right to accept the contention of some people who say that if you charge only low enough sums for what you are doing you can make an enormous profit. As a matter of fact that is not what happened when we made this reduction. The loss was increased, but not very much, and we are now in a position that the loss is only slightly greater under the 6d. than it was under

the shilling telegram. We have, however, the advantage of reviving a service which is after all necessary to the country and has supplied a much cheaper telegraph service, which is sometimes badly needed by people who are not well off and have not telephones to use in cases of emergency.
I should like to pay a tribute briefly but sincerely to the wonderful work which has been done by our research department at Dollis Hill. They are applying all the latest products of scientific research for the improvement of our services and they deserve thanks from us all. I come to the question of telephones. There has been the most remarkable development of telephones within the last few years. The most important of the recent changes are two. There is the half-crown maximum for a call between any two points on the mainland, however remote, by day. It is the daytime equivalent of the well-known shilling call at night. The other important concession was one which I made last October and that is the exceedingly popular concession of 50 free calls per quarter. That, I think, has undoubtedly been responsible for a large part of the year's increase, as I can show from the figures.
The increase in telephones last year—and it is a remarkable figure in itself—was 248,000. In the last six months, that is to say after the concession of the free calls was made, there was an increase of no fewer than 147,000, which shows how much of that great increase is due to this particular concession. To meet this greatly increased traffic we are spending in the present year no less than £17,750,000 on telephone developments in these islands. That is an unprecedented sum and it is 2½ times as much as we were spending in 1934. This has undoubtedly thrown a severe strain on the engineering staff, and in order to meet it we have added in the last two years no fewer than 11,000 people to our engineering staff. That is a huge addition.
The hon. Member spoke about overtime and wanted it removed. We want to cut it down very much, but the point is that we have to get this work through because telephone development is a contribution to the general recovery of the country. Large numbers of the 11,000 people are young men whom I have seen being trained. They are not trained engineers


when they join and it must be some time before this enormous addition to our staff becomes effective, so that we can reduce overtime which we shall be very glad to do as soon as we can.
There are some minor points which the hon. Member made. With reference to ex-service postmen I am always a little doubtful about individual cases where the people concerned make their own calculations about their incomes. At all events I am prepared to say that as a result of discussions with the staff the position of these ex-service men on entering the Post Office at an age rather older than that at which we usually take people has been improved by 5s. a week in the last three years. With reference to inventions, again I am not prepared to be guided entirely by statements in the Press from those who feel that they have grievances, because people are as a rule not unprejudiced in the consideration of their own cases. I cannot help thinking that the present arrangement under which a committee with an independent chairman considers inventions and whether they should have some reward, and is available for appeals by inventors, is probably the best arrangement.
With reference to the automatic exchanges and promotion, the hon. Member is right to the extent that about two years ago there was a considerable discouragement and set-back of promotion, but in the last two years, with the great extension of which I have given the House some figures, telephone supervisors have increased by 250, whereas at one time the number was doing down. The position is now very much better and I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Member on that point. I will not discuss the individual case of dismissal, which the hon. Member did not want discussed here, but I think all who have ever held this position will support the contention that if the Postmaster-General is to be responsible to the House and to the country for his Department, he must have the right to dismiss individual members of the staff who, he considers, ought not to remain in the public service. Otherwise, it is impossible to see how he can be held responsible for the efficiency of the Department. This has been the general practice for many years and it will go on.
The hon. Member, in a burst of enthusiasm for the 40-hour week, told us of the splendid results which would follow if his party were returned to office. He said definitely that his party would introduce the 40-hour week. As he has said that, I wish to read a quotation, first to show that the Labour Government did not do it last time they were in office, and, secondly, to show that they did attach very great importance to the difference between gross time and net time in the hours worked. The quotation I am reading is a reply of the Labour Government in 1929 to a demand, which amounted to a claim, for a 42-hour week, not a 40-hour week. The official answer sent by the Labour Government was that
While the nominal hours of attendance of the manipulative postal, telegraph and telephone staffs are 48 a week, they are reduced in practice to an average net working week of not more than 43 hours for the indoor staff and 45 for the outdoor staff.
Then, when the hon. Member tells us that a Labour Government will establish the 40-hour week next time, I must remind him that in reply to a request for the 42-hour week it was stated:
Under these circumstances the Postmaster-General regrets that there would not be justification for a general reduction of hours.

Mr. Viant: But have not the circumstances changed? Is not the amount of machinery which is being introduced worthy of consideration?

Major Tryon: It is quite true that the country is much more prosperous now than it was then, but the point on which the hon. Member hinged his argument was the relief of unemployment, and if a shortening of hours would relieve unemployment, there was an ever greater demand for some solution of the unemployment problem when his party were in office.

Mr. Viant: There is the unemployment that we may expect again. That is my point.

Major Tryon: The point of the hon. Member was that a shortening of hours would give employment. The point I am making is that when they were asked to create employment by shortening hours the Labour Government did not do it. I would not have said this if the hon. Member had not ventured, I think rather rashly, to give that assurance to the


postal workers, because I feel that some of them have rather long memories. I turn now to the problem of the 40-hour week. The engineering staff of the Post Office are at the present moment actually working a 48-hour week. Their conditions of employment are very closely related to those of similar employés in other Government Departments and in outside industry. The question of the hours of the engineering staff is therefore a national one, and must be considered in the light of the general policy of the Government. Much as I should like to be able to do something which would bring their hours more into line with those of their postal colleagues, I regret that I cannot at present do so. But I hope to be able to discuss with them shortly certain other improvements in their conditions of employment.
I come now to the grades represented by the Union of Post Office Workers, who have a 48-hour gross week. A recent comprehensive survey shows that the nominal working hours of these grades are on the average only about 44 hours a week. Included in this total are the occasional reliefs and other attendance concessions made possible by the ebb and flow of the traffic and the time allowance credited to the staff in compensation for night work, long covering duties and other disabilities incidental to Post Office work. If those were disregarded the total number of hours worked generally would be only about 42, but I am taking the number as 44, because I do not wish to take advantage of the point about night work.
The Union of Post Office Workers, when asking for a 40-hour week, mean a 40-hour gross week, or an actual working week of anything from 34 to 36 hours. The hon. Member quoted what is done overseas. In the United States they have introduced the 40-hour week, but it is a 40-hour net week, which is very much longer than the 40-hour gross week would prove in practice. He also quoted the introduction of the 40-hour week in France. I do not wish to make any allusion to a foreign country, but it would be difficult at the moment to base any favourable conclusions, in the light of subsequent events, on the introduction of the 40-hour week in France. I do not claim that there is no room for advance as far as conditions of employment of the staff are concerned. It has been my

constant endeavour to ensure that such advance as is reasonably justified is effected, and that will continue to be my endeavour.
While, then, I cannot see my way to agree to a reduction in the gross hours of duty of the Post Office staff, I recognise that the conditions of service in the Post Office in the matter of hours of attendance and arrangements of duties are, to some extent, exceptional. I have, therefore, told the Union of Post Office Workers that I am prepared to discuss with them modifications of the regulations relating to meal reliefs, rest reliefs and allowances for exceptional attendances, together with other similar questions. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Union have intimated their acceptance of this offer, which may well result in some further reduction in the net hours of duty of the persons concerned. It seems to me that it is in this direction that the best hope of progress lies, and it is along these lines that I propose to pursue the matter.
The Post Office service is a Government monopoly, and it is reasonable that the profit on it should accrue to the benefit of the public generally, either by way of relief from taxation or in the shape of reduced charges. Any increase in the cost of Post Office administration which seriously affects its surplus would have to be made good by some form of taxation. The hon. Member spoke of the scheme costing "some thousands," but the Union of Post Office Workers itself estimates that the cost of the 40-hour week would be from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000. Moreover, the Union has intimated its intention to claim substantial wage increases in addition, so there would be other costs. Further, the fact that the Post Office is a monopoly, and is backed by all the resources of the State, makes it impossible to apply to the claim for a 40-hour week the usual commercial criterion of the ability of the Post Office surplus to bear the cost of conceding the claim.
The only criterion which the Post Office can safely apply to proposals for improving its pay and conditions of service must be a comparison with the standard of good employers in outside industry generally. I may say that the Post Office need fear no comparison with employers in outside industry generally in respect of wages, conditions of service, hours, holidays, sick


leave, pensions, and so on. Until substantially more progress has been made in the reduction of hours in industry generally the Government cannot contemplate such independent action in the case of their employés, whether in the Post Office or elsewhere. The suggestion has been made, quite legitimately, by the hon. Member that shortened hours would relieve unemployment. Our policy of reducing charges to the public, while at the same time making concessions to meet the legitimate claims of the staff, has made a valuable contribution to the reduction of unemployment. The result of this policy has been an increase in the staff last year of 16,000 people. I think that the fact that we have been able not only to make concessions to the public and the staff but to add 16,000 to the numbers of the staff, shows that we are doing something for unemployment. I think it is very largely due to the concessions that have been made to the public that we have been able to give extra employment, because they have brought us more work to do. In addition, an enormous amount of employment has been provided in industries outside the Post Office, in the manufacture of telephone and telegraph instruments, and the like.
While I am making this statement, which I need hardly say I have spent a great deal of time in condensing, because it is of great importance, I do not want to give the impression that nothing has been done for the staff, because such an impression would be entirely wrong. In the last four years wage increases have been granted which will ultimately cost £2,500,000 a year. Eliminating the restoration of the cuts, the amount of the concessions will ultimately mean an additional expenditure of £1,300,000. A matter which I know will interest the hon. Member is that there has been a great reduction in part-time labour. This question relates to auxiliary postmen. Their number was reduced last year by 1,500, mostly by conversion to full-time posts. That has been a considerable contribution to the problem to which the hon. Member naturally and rightly directed an important part of his speech. On the telephone side, we hope to replace 1,500 part-time posts by full-time posts in the near future. I will not go into the extremely difficult problems involved, over which I have spent a good deal of

time, but there are certain times of the day when the mails are particularly heavy, and it is then that the part-time labour comes in. We are making arrangements to improve that position very much. Our general policy is to reduce part-time labour in all grades. I entirely agree with the hon. Member on that point.
We are giving special attention to better welfare accommodation, and to such things as staff refreshment rooms, dining room equipment and amenities. The hon. Member spoke about the influence of overtime and said there was a great deal of sickness in the Post Office. The facts are that in 1936 the rate of sickness among men was the lowest since 1914, and that sickness among women was the lowest since 1906. While we agree as to the importance of reducing overtime, there does not seem to be a good foundation for suggesting that overtime has led to sickness, in view of the fact that the sickness has not been so low for a very long time past.
I am hoping, after the House has risen, to visit a number of great Post Office centres in some of our large towns. It enables one to get into touch with the work on the spot and into touch with the staff. Wherever I have been I have been struck with the extraordinarily friendly attitude of the staff. I think there is better feeling among the staff than perhaps there has ever been before, and I am very proud to be associated with them and with the leaders of the staff whom I am happy to meet at headquarters. I cannot find better words for the attitude of the staff than those of the present Prime Minister who said that the staff—I am quoting—were
animated by a sympathetic interest in the needs of the public and a determination to show them that the Post Office is a friendly and a human place, and not a mere machine.
I think a good deal of the improved relations with the public is due to our Public Relations Department, which is doing most valuable work. It gets into touch with important bodies, municipalities, chambers of commence and chambers of trade, and generally endeavours to find out how we can serve and help the public. It also tells the public what concessions we are making. If we make concessions, we want the public to take them up and use them, and make them of advantage to


the State, so that we can launch out again into further improvements. I may mention such things—although they are fairly small when you think of the enormous scale of our operations—as the talking clock, the golden telegram and the mobile post office, which have made a contribution towards increased good will between the public and ourselves. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen the mobile post office. It is something like a tramcar, only much more beautiful. You can go into it and pick up a telephone, invest your savings or the money which you may have won at an agricultural show, send telegrams or buy stamps. It is a real, mobile post office. This thing drives round to large agricultural shows, adds to the brightness of the scene and is of very great convenience to the public. Then, off it goes. It has been touring Scotland. All those things do not mean much in themselves, but the public like them, and feel that the Post Office is striking out a new line and trying to do something which the public likes. It helps the public to have friendly feelings towards the Post Office.
In conclusion, I would like to say only one or two further things. I have already mentioned the staff; I should like to add how greatly I am indebted to the Assistant Postmaster-General. Ours is an extraordinarily busy office. Only those who have been there know how busy the Department is, and they will not blame me for expressing my gratitude to him. I should like to say also how much the Department is indebted to the Advisory Council and the Advisory Committees, and to the Press, who have also given us invaluable help with such things as the "Post Early" campaign. I am also grateful for the kindly interest taken in the Post Office by hon. Members of this House, and I thank them very much.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Wakefield: The Postmaster-General has given us a comprehensive survey of the work of his Department, but that undertaking is of such magnitude that there must, of necessity, be a number of its operations with which he has omitted to deal or has hardly touched upon. I was glad, however, to hear him refer to the innovation which has taken place this year in connection with the new Empire air mail service. That must have a far-reaching effect, and I think that anything

that can be done to shorten the distance between the homeland and the Colonies and Dominions at this period of our civilisation is of immense importance and value.
I should like to make a brief reference to the method of overtime to which the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) referred. He said that some 4,000,000 hours of overtime were worked, and he blamed the Post Office for working overtime. I do not, however, see how an organisation like the Post Office, which has to maintain a great public service, can avoid overtime on certain occasions. During the year there are such occurrences as heavy falls of snow, gales, and so on, which interrupt communication. It is clear that in such emergencies the normal staff will be, and must be, called upon to work overtime, and I am sure that they carry out their overtime work in a public-spirited way.
There was another point, which the Postmaster - General answered very adequately, namely, that of the reduction of hours of work, but I would like to add something to what the Postmaster-General said on that matter. The hon. Member for West Willesden said that the only palliative for unemployment was a reduction of the hours of work. I have discussed this matter with many workers in my constitutency and in other constituencies, and I think the general feeling is, where the hours of work are reasonable and adequate leisure is available, that, rather than reduced hours of work, the workers would prefer to have more pay. The introduction of machinery enables one of three things to happen—a reduction of the price charged to the public, the advantages of which have already been described by the Post-master-General; shorter hours; or increased pay for the worker; and, where the hours of work are reasonable, I think it is better that there should be increased pay. With increased pay there is a better standard of living, we hope greater happiness, and improved conditions. Moreover, if the pay of the workers is increased, they have more money both to spend and to save, and that in turn creates further employment. Therefore the hon. Member is under a misapprehension if he thinks that the only way to reduce unemployment is to reduce the hours of work. It is far more likely that


increased employment will result from increased wages than from a reduction of the hours of work where these are reasonable.
To return to the new Empire air mail services, apart from the advantages to those who live in, or have to correspond with, people in far distant parts of the Empire, it is a great advantage to have a cheap service quickened in the way that it has been; but there is also a far greater advantage, namely, that by this policy of sending first-class mail by air the Post Office has rendered a very real service to the Defence programme, since there will be an increased number of pilots, mechanics, and ground staff available in the event of an emergency. Without this help from the Post Office, such a reserve of highly trained pilots and mechanics would not be possible, and, therefore, I think that in this way the Post Office has rendered a very real service to the Defence position of this country. I would like to congratulate the Postmaster-General on the smooth introduction of the new service. It is no mean task to carry by air to the great African Continent that first-class mail which was formerly taken by sea. It is obvious that, however well prepared the ground may be beforehand, everything cannot work quite as smoothly in such a transition as would be hoped.
I have had experience of considerable delay of a number of letters sent by air. Before this service was introduced the normal time taken to get to Rhodesia, for example, was about eight days. During the last month quite a number of letters have been taking 10, 12 and 14 days, owing doubtless to the excessive mail to be carried. There is no room on one flying boat, and a letter has to wait for the second or third. I hope within the next few weeks the difficulty will be overcome. If it is not, I suggest that there be introduced a system of a late fee payment or some extra payment for express delivery, so that any letter which it is desired shall reach its destination at the earliest moment shall be sent off by the earliest possible mail. It does not matter for ordinary correspondence whether a letter reaches its destination in five or ten days, but I had experience the other day of a very important business mail which took 12 days instead of eight. Cables passed as to what had happened to it, and a considerable loss

was incurred because the letter was late. It is vitally important for business and commercial reasons that there should be regularity in delivery. I see the difficulty of always maintaining an exact schedule when so much mail is being taken in the early stages, but I hope my right hon. Friend will see the advisability of instituting some such preferential service.
Another point with which I should like to deal is the great part that the Post Office plays in the broadcasting system of the country. When we think of broadcasting we do not realise the responsibilities that belong to the Post Office in ensuring that a good reception service is made available to the public and maintained in the highest possible degree of efficiency. Much praise was rightly given to the British Broadcasting Corporation for the very wonderful broadcasting of the Coronation service, but how many people realise that the clarity of that broadcast was due in no small measure to the complicated and difficult technical work done by the Post Office? The direct lines from the Abbey to the broadcasting studios, whence they are transmitted to different parts of the country and Continental stations—all that is done by the Post Office. It is a very complicated job. They are not ordinary telephone or speaking lines. Music lines must be used, and for temporary work of that kind very great care and skill are required to ensure that everything goes smoothly. I think that enough praise and credit has not been given to the Post Office for the work that they have done in this direction for the last two or three years. There are some 10,000 miles, so I have discovered in the last day or two, of permanent music lines laid in this country which are used by the B.B.C., and some 273 Anglo-Continental telephone circuits have been used between this country and the Continent during the past 12 months. It is not generally realised to what extent the Post Office gives assistance to the British Broadcasting Corporation in the discharge of its duties to the public.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) the other day asked a question of the Postmaster-General which rather intrigued me because it did not appear to be answered, and so I made a few inquiries about the position. The question asked whether the Postmaster. General was aware that people in Switzerland


enjoy direct-line broadcasting programmes from British Broadcasting House, London, and when he expects to permit similar facilities to the taxpayers of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1937; col. 2448, Vol. 326.]
The answer given was that there was an exchange of programmes between Switzerland and this country, but no reply was given as to direct line facilities being given to taxpayers in this country. The position to-day is that many foreign countries enjoy direct land line facilities from the studios of the broadcasting stations in their own country direct into the homes of the people. That is to say, the programmes never go into the air at all; they go direct by land line from studios into the homes of the people. Obviously, there is considerable advantage in the use of land line transmission; electrical interference, fading, trolley-bus interference and other disturbances, about which questions have been asked in this House during the last few weeks are thus avoided. Such facilities are not available to the taxpayers in this country. The Post Office, I believe, are able to give facilities, and are naturally anxious to extend their business, but I am informed that it is the British Broadcasting Corporation which refuses to give the necessary facilities at the studio end, and I find it difficult to realise why.
Quite clearly, if these landline facilities were made available by the B.B.C. its own programmes could be heard far better in many parts of the country. It is a well-known fact that on the North-East coast, for example, and on parts of the South Coast the reception of British broadcast programmes is at certain times of the year and at certain times of the day extremely bad, due to fading and to other difficulties. But if these B.B.C. programmes were made available by direct line, there would be considerable advantage both to the general public and to the British Broadcasting Corporation itself. At the present time many listeners in such parts of the country are compelled to listen in to foreign programmes in order to get their entertainment. I think that this is undesirable. The reason given by the British Broadcasting Corporation is that it cannot permit such facilities unless its programmes only are given. The Committee which sat in 1935 to go into this question considered it incumbent upon the B.B.C. to take into consideration any desire of subscribers

and taxpayers to have a selection of foreign programmes. I suggest that the British Broadcasting Corporation, in denying to the taxpayers of this country the right to have these facilities, is not carrying out the duties which it should discharge under the terms of its Charter. The whole essence of the Charter of the B.B.C. is that the broadcasting should be conducted by a public corporation acting as trustee for the national interest. When foreign countries are able to permit their listeners to have these facilities, whereas the B.B.C. refuses to grant them, it is not discharging its duties properly.
There is another point which was raised by the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) during the passage of the Physical Training and Recreation Bill a few weeks ago. He suggested that perhaps in the early morning the B.B.C. might with advantage assist physical training and recreation by giving some form of special broadcast. I noticed two or three days ago that a foreign station does this. It says:
Laugh and grow fat in the early morning. Physical jerks with a laugh, led by Joe Murgatroyd, the lad from Yorkshire.
I pass that on to the B.B.C. and hope that they will take advantage of that hint. I hope that the Postmaster-General will look into this question and see whether it is not possible to give facilities to the British public similar to those enjoyed in foreign countries.
In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the Postmaster-General on the statement that he has given to the House of the record progress made by his Department during the past year, and the development work now being undertaken. This increase in business reflects a happy and gradual return of prosperity throughout the country, and I am sure that we wish him during the coming year an even greater success than has been achieved by his Department during the past year.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) has made another cogent claim for the radio relay service, of which he is a distinguished pioneer. While I have no brief for that branch of private industry, I do think that it would be well for the Post Office not to overlook the necessity of keeping


pace with that branch of radio development, and not to allow themselves to fall behind development in foreign countries in that direction. I should also like to add my meed of praise to the Postmaster-General and to echo what was said by the hon. Member about the enterprise shown by the Post Office in the development of its air postal services.
Nothing impresses me more in this House than to hear Conservative Postmasters-General recounting in all their splendour the Socialistic achievements of the State-run Post Office. I am unable to see the logic of their position when they try to maintain that the Post Office is in some special degree different from any other kind of enterprise. We often hear it said that the Post Office is a monopoly, but to the same extent that the Post Office is a monopoly so are a large number of other enterprises or firms in this country monopolies, if not in name then in fact, and I contend, and I hope it is not yet too late for the Postmaster-General to learn, that the undeniable success achieved by the State-controlled Post Office is just as likely to be achieved by State-controlled branches of industry in other spheres.
Impressive as the Postmaster-General is when recounting the achievements of the Post Office, he is not so impressive when he finds himself unable to resist an attempt to score debating points over his predecessors in the Post Office on the Front Opposition Bench. He told us that the Labour Government in 1929 abstained from putting into force the 40-hour week which it now recommends and pledges itself to introduce in the future. Surely times and circumstances have moved forward with enormous rapidity since that date? The Postmaster-General himself claimed that the times are more prosperous now, and, as usual, he earned cheers from his supporters with the fallacy that the whole of the prosperity which has come to the country since 1931 has been due to the deliberate policy of the National Government, completely overlooking the fact that the greatest factor in the restoration of prosperity is that we went off the Gold Standard contrary to the most strenuous efforts made by the National Government of that day. An event which they foretold would be followed by disaster has proved to be the

most potent factor in the restoration of the prosperity of this country.
The Post Office has, indeed, had a record year; £10,750,000 paid to the Treasury and another sum which it is able to dispose of itself. The Postmaster-General was not able to convince the House that adequate concessions have been made to the vast service over which he presides. He endeavoured to make out that ex-service postmen had received an extra 5s. per week in wages, bringing them up to a total wage of £2 14s. per week—not a very magnificent boast. He told us that the total increase in wages amounted to £1,750,000 out of a total of £40,000,000 paid in wages by the Post Office. The amount which has accrued to the 300,000 Post Office workers in this year of great prosperity has been an increase of 2½ per cent. on their total wage. I do not wish to accuse the Postmaster-General with meanness of outlook, but I contend that in many of the smaller cases which come under the administration of the Post Office there is evidence of a lack of magnaminity which ill becomes the magnicent State service over which he presides. A few years ago I remember a proposal that ex-service men under 5 feet 4 inches should be appointed as Post Office sorters, but not all the pleading of hon. Members in all parts of the House could induce the Post Office to allow men who had been good enough to stand on the parapet to stand on a block of wood and sort letters in the Post Office.
A case was brought to my attention the other day which I feel I must bring to the notice of the House. A man in my constituency was deprived of the benefits of established service because he happened to fall ill with a complaint known as duodenal ulcer, with the characteristics of which, of course, every hon. Member is familiar. I do not wish it to be thought that I raise this purely as a constituency point; I raise it as a further illustration of lack of breadth of outlook and magnanimity in treating these cases. The man was made a temporary postman. For 18 months he carried out his duties with complete efficiency and there was no sign of a return of his disease. All his fellows in his trade union and a considerable number of local people made appeals, to which I added my small voice in correspondence with the Assistant Postmaster-General, stating the case as


clearly as I could and begging him not to allow the fact that the Post Office had hitherto refused to reinstate this man to prejudice them against a fresh and an open consideration of the case.
What was I told? I was told that duodenal ulcer is a complaint which is very liable to recur. I said, "Let us have a fresh medical examination; let the man be referred to the medical examination of a medical officer appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners; and let them report to the Post Office as to whether or not his complaint is likely to recur." What was the response? "The Post Office is unable to reconsider its decision." Things of that sort excite discontent among the people at a post office where there are hundreds of employés, at a time when the Post Office has a surplus of millions of pounds. In such cases there is no great principle involved which might result in bringing in an enormous class of employés who might threaten the financial stability of the revenue account. In individual cases of that nature, surely the Post Office is leaning rather heavily on one or two Individuals who are serving them to the best of their ability. It is not a case of the man being unable to carry out his task, for he has been doing that for 18 months; it is simply that if he is put on the established branch, he may come in for a claim for pension or sickness benefit which he would not get if he remained unestablished
That is really an unworthy attitude for a large employer of labour to take up. I hope that it is not yet too late for something to be done, if there is anything in the system under which Ministers are prepared to consider sincere representations made by Members of this House on behalf of their constituents, backed up by the colleagues of these men in their own post offices. There is more to be gained by giving in in such cases than in holding out against them. I appeal to the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has been giving his attention to this case, to look into it again. As I see it, the job of a Minister, if I may say so with great respect, is to form some sort of bridge between these matters of public opinion and general policy and the strict rules by which the Civil Service has to be governed. If he fails on occasion to exercise the discretion which

has been vested in him, my submission is that he is not showing the highest characteristics of a good Minister of the Crown. I will not detain the House any longer. As I have already said, I am an admirer of the Post Office, and I have put forward these views in the hope that the Post Office will readjust, on these small matters, their views towards their relations with their staff.

10.44 p.m.

Sir Edward Campbell: The Postmaster-General has already referred to most of the things said by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), but I would like to take up the case mentioned by the hon. Member, and also the one referred to by the hon. Member who has just spoken. I happen to have spent three years at the Post Office alongside two Assistant Postmasters-General. From time to time, they would bring along large bundles of cases which had been sent to them by the officials with regard to the dismissal or otherwise of various employés. They said to me, "Would you mind going through this list. You have been head of a very big concern which was not a Government Department. How would you have handled these cases in your office?" They asked for my opinion. I went into these cases and in not one single case was any injustice done to accused persons. If I may be allowed to give myself a pat on the back I would say that when I was in the East I was always looked upon as a reasonable employer. I have always been and I hope I still am a sportsman, and I assure the hon. Member for West Willesden from my own experience of those three years in the Post Office that these cases were given every consideration. Very often, when it was decided that a person was to be dismissed and I was asked my opinion, I said that I should have done so long before had it been left to me. There was always the plea that a man should be given another chance. Possibly that was right and I did not object to it, but I sometimes thought that if those people had been in the employment of a private firm, they would have gone much earlier. Naturally, of course, when a man is dismissed, whether rightly or wrongly, he feels hurt about it, and who is better able to take up his case than his Member of Parliament just as I myself take up the cases of constituents of my own.
I wish particularly to-night to speak of the air mail services. I had the great honour and pleasure 2½ years ago of going on a delegation with my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Guinness) and two civil servants on behalf of the Post Office, in connection with speeding up air services throughout the Empire. I am anxious to know what has been done since and what has been the result, not necessarily of what that delegation did but of the proposals that were discussed when we visited various parts of the Empire. I find in the Air Debates in this House much criticism of Imperial Airways. Not being an airman myself I have never dared to intervene in Debates on the Air Estimates, but I can say that although I had never flown until I went all the way to Australia in Imperial Airways machines, I felt perfectly safe from beginning to end of that journey. That is one of the most important things in connection with an air service. The traveller should feel that the pilot is a first-class pilot and that the machine is a good machine. We also found on that journey that we were extraordinarily comfortable. If we are to increase these air services, the first essential is safety, the second reasonable speed, and the third, comfort. It may be necessary at times for a person going on a long journey to take the first machine available in order to get there quickly, but if that person has not felt safe and comfortable, he will return by boat and that is not the idea.
During the fortnight that we were in India on the occasion to which I refer, I found that the officials there had tackled the problem of air services with great ability and keenness. We also went to Singapore, and here I wish to make a reference to the wonderful new aerodrome there. From time to time I have criticised the late Governor of Singapore, Sir Cecil Clementi, for various things which he has done or has not done, but I wish to say now that if he had done nothing good in his life except to select this aerodrome, I heartily congratulate him upon it. It is a first-class aerodrome, probably the best in the Empire and therefore I take this opportunity of paying my tribute to it, and if the late Governor of Singapore should happen to read my speech he will know that I have given him the fair measure of praise which is his due.
We visited India, Singapore and Java, where I had the honour of welcoming Keith Smith and Ross Smith when they came out in 1919, and had the privilege of arranging for the landing grounds there. I little thought then that later I should fly there on Government business. In New Zealand we were heartily welcomed. I sincerely hope that those who are going to travel to Australia will be able to travel in flying boats between the Dutch East Indies and Australia rather than, as we had to travel, in a land plane over 500 miles of a shark-infested sea. When I looked down and saw nothing but sea and sharks, I can assure the House that even a so-called brave man like myself was exceedingly glad to see the land, even though, with all deference to Australia, it was only Darwin. No sooner had I landed at Darwin than I was glad to get out of it again. I hope that the Postmaster-General will try to get Australia to agree that that journey should be done by flying boats and not by land planes.
Will the Postmaster-General tell us when the new scheme of air services to India, Singapore and Australia is going to start, how many mails a week there will be, and whether New Zealand is to be included, because the New Zealanders were extraordinarily keen? They showed more enthusiasm for this scheme than any of the other countries to which we went. Will he tell us how long it will take to reach each of these places? It took us 11 days to get to Australia. It took people who went there by steamer 32 days. But there is still more improvement to be obtained. Finally, will the journeys be completed by seaplanes or land planes? I think that practically the whole of the journey can be done by flying boats, but I understand that there may be some difficulty in getting the Australians to agree to have flying boats.
I congratulate the Postmaster-General on the excellent report he has given and on the hard work which he and his colleagues are putting in. I agree with him entirely about the staff. I do not think that I ever spent three happier years than those I spent in the Post Office. The staff were first-class and when I hear the Civil Service being criticised I think that very often the men who criticise them do not know them and have


not worked with them. They are helpful, they know their places, and they give the Ministers a jolly good brief from which to make their speeches. If a speech is not as good as it should be it is not the fault of the Civil Service.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The hon. Member for Bromley (Sir E. Campbell) has done very well for the Post Office, but when he spoke about all the cases being examined thoroughly, we do not doubt that, but we do make the appeal that the Post Office in these matters will be a bit more generous than it has been in the past. In special cases, such as that which was pointed out by my hon. Friend, close attention should be given to see whether anything more can be done. I have only one main point that I want to bring forward, and it is in regard to the balance-sheet of the Post Office. The Postmaster-General told us that they paid £10,750,000 to the Treasury, and that all above that is used for any particular purpose for which they may want to use it. The point that I have in mind is in reference to Departments which have to do work for other Departments. Tomorrow I have a question down to the Minister of Health asking whether he will adopt some method to make known what we term the new voluntary pension scheme. I believe he will do that, and to do it he will have to get the cooperation of the Post Office. When the Post Office takes over work for other Departments in that way, it should be made quite clear what is being done. If such work was done for a private firm or for myself, we should have to pay for it. Is there some understanding in this matter between one Department and another, by which, if the one does work valued at, say, £1,000, it is credited by that amount, so as to show what work has actually been carried out by that Department? If the work balanced all round equally, it would be merely a book-keeping matter, but it does not, because one Department does a far greater amount of work of this nature than do other Departments.
I want to see the balance-sheet of the Post Office made a true reflection of the returns of that Department. When we are attempting to get better conditions for Post Office employés, such as a reduction in hours or higher wages, we want to see that the returns are there to meet

the cost, and unless we get a fair return of all the work done, it is not answering itself as it ought to. I do not think very many people know whether it is done or not. I was asked the question the other week, when talking about Post Office matters, and I had to confess that I could not answer it and that I could not say definitely whether or not this work done for other Departments is shown in the balance-sheet. I want the Assistant Postmaster-General to-night to clear up that point so that it will go out to the public how the Post Office work is going on and clear away all doubt on the point in question.

10.59 p.m.

Major Procter: Much as I would like to answer the illustration mentioned by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) as to the Post Office being in effect an example of applied Socialism, I have not the time to do it. I desire to call the attention of the Post-master-General to the position of he parcel post. Those who are trying to establish smallholdings feel that if there was a better and cheaper system of parcel post, it would enable the buyers of various things, such as tomatoes, poultry, and vegetables, to get a direct sale to the homes of the people. If the Postmaster-General will look into the comparative rates of his nationalised system of distributing goods he will find that the freight rates of parcels of one pound weight amount to £54 per ton. A 1–lb. parcel costs 6d. and a 3-lb. parcel also costs 6d., so that the rate averages from £54 to £18 per ton.
Comparing the rates of parcels charged by the nationalised Post Office and by the railways, we find that a 4-lb. parcel carried by the Post Office costs 8d. and on the railways up to 30 miles 7d.; 5 to 6-lb. parcels by post, 9d., on the railways 7d. and 8d.; 6 lbs. by post 10d., and on the railways 7d. and 9d.; 8 lbs. by post 11d., and on the railways 8d. and 9d.; 8 to 12 lbs. by post 1s., and on the railways 8d. and 11d.; 15 lbs. by post 1s., and on the railways 9d. and 1s. The railways have a two-way rate according to whether the parcel travels up to or beyond 30 miles radius. There we have two monopolies at work, the Post Office and the railways, but manufacturers in Accrington can send parcels to London by road under individual enterprise much cheaper than either the Post Office or the railways.


Smallholdings are increasing and many pensioners are working on the land where they produce poultry. We have kippers in Aberdeen, and it costs less to get kippers out of the sea than to send them through the nationalised Post Office to the people who require them. I hope that the Postmaster-General will look into this matter to see how he can help the smallholders and the small producers and curers so that they can send their parcels more cheaply through the Post Office.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Markham: I should like to add my congratulations to those which have been freely expressed to the Postmaster-General on the year's work. There are one or two small points to which attention should be directed. One is that the telephone boxes are so flimsily made that any one can hear a conversation that is going on therein. It has been the common experience of Members of the House in the telephone room while waiting for a trunk call to hear several telephone conversations which undoubtedly should be kept quiet. That is true not only of this House but of every country Post Office. The call boxes in the Post Offices are so flimsily made that anyone going in to make a chance purchase of stamps may very often hear the most intimate conversations, without in any way wishing to eavesdrop. I suggest that attention should be given to the double-facing of the doors, and the introduction of air cells with double layers of plywood. I think that has been found, in the experiments conducted by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, to produce what is practically speaking a noise-proof box. Not long ago, at an exhibition at the Science Museum in connection with noise abatement some fine models of sound-deadening apparatus were shown, and the Post Office should bring its telephone boxes up to date.
My second point also concerns the telephone service, but it is of so delicate a character that I do not wish to give particular instances. It refers to the eavesdropping which goes on among post office officials and the way in which news is disseminated in country districts. We know that in olden days the postmistress in the village post office used to read every post card which came through, and that the contents of post cards were village gossip for the next few hours or even

for days. That was understandable in the olden days, but what is not understandable is that telephone operators should pass on conversations which are overheard. I certainly should not give instances in this House, and I should be very chary of giving instances privately, because naturally one does not wish to put people in front of the possibility of dismissal; but I suggest that a most stringent circular should be issued by the Postmaster-General pledging every member of his staff, particularly those in the telephone service, to the utmost secrecy, and that in case of complaints a secret test should be made so that they can be investigated not by questions through the local postmaster but by methods of another kind. I have had a melancholy experience in this direction, and, unfortunately, telephone leakages which have occurred have often been in connection with the unfortunate things of life.
Another complaint concerns the comfort of the public in village post offices. Only too often the post office is housed in the local sweet shop, and the facilities for postal customers are skimpy in the extreme. It is often difficult to find space to write a telegram or to get served when a conversation is going on in another corner of the shop. A great amount of money is being spent by the Post Office on the development of city post offices, and I suggest that there should be a great programme for bringing village post offices up to date with, if need be, modern buildings allowing ample space for the customers. These are minor points which I have raised, and in general I join with other Members in congratulating the Postmaster-General on a very successful year's work.

11.8 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I have not very much time in which to reply to the various questions which have been put to me, and if I do not reply to certain questions let me assure hon. Members that they will receive earnest consideration at the Post Office. It has been a very pleasing Debate. We have had bouquets handed to us from all sides. It is true that one or two Members included a thistle or two in their bouquets, but on the whole neither my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General nor I can complain at the reception we have had to-night. What


we are concerned about is the short time we have had in which to deal with this important Department. We owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) for introducing the Debate, and to him and to his colleagues for agreeing that we should have a half-day if we could not have a whole day. The Postmaster-General replied at considerable length to the important points raised by the hon. Member for West Willesden, but one or two smaller points were omitted, and I propose to deal with them.
There was the question of the interchange of staff recommended by the Bridgeman Committee. There has been considerable interchange of staff, between headquarters, the Provinces and the regions. This has proved so successful that we are going to continue it, develop it and make the best use of it. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the question of dealing with the staff. He knows from experience that it must be the special duty of the Assistant Postmaster-General to deal with such matters. If the system is considered, it will be found to compare most favourably with any other system adopted in any other form of employment. Every member of the staff has the right of appeal to the Postmaster-General if he is dissatisfied with his promotion chances or is threatened with dismissal. If dishonesty or breaches of regulation have to be dealt with, the process is as follows: The case is first considered locally. The head postmaster—if it is a postal servant, or the head of the engineering department, if it is a case in that department—carefully considers the evidence produced. Then, in the case of regions, the matter is passed to the regional head, who again gives most careful attention to the facts that are presented to him. It goes to headquarters, where it is dealt with by a competent staff whose duty covers cases of discipline and where dismissal is threatened.
After that, it goes to the Assistant Director-General, a very experienced official who, I can assure hon. Members, gives the closest attention to cases that come before him. Then it comes to myself, and I say, on my own behalf, that I regard it as a very serious duty and obligation to give it the closest attention and consideration, and to the representations made by the man or by the Union on his behalf. I realise that once a servant

of the Post Office is dismissed from the service, it is practically signing his death warrant against getting employment of a respectable kind. I take the greatest care to see that justice is done, and cases are often sent back for further investigation. It is only when I am absolutely convinced that dismissal is the right verdict that I pass it on to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Postmaster-General, who has to sign it as the responsible official.
In this connection I would deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) and then I shall clear away two points together. The hon. Member mentioned a case; he has fought it well on behalf of his constituent and I admire him for it. I did the same for constituents of mine before I came into the Postal service and have done so since. But I have had to realise that however much I was prejudiced in favour of the person, I have had to deal with the case on its merits alone. I have to take into account the position of all other members of the staff, when asked to make concessions such as the hon. Member asked in this or that case. In reviewing, because of health reasons, the case of a temporary postman and the question of bringing him on to the permanent staff, or where a man is superannuated out of the service for health reasons, we are bound to take into consideration the conditions of the service.
There is no service in this country that is more generous in its treatment of men who are ill. Full wages are paid, medical attention is given, and all that can be done is done to help to make the person well again. It is only when it is shown beyond a shadow of doubt that the person is not likely to render useful service to the Department that the question of superannuating him out of the Service arises. But when it comes to the question of taking people into the Service, I submit that we must be careful. When a person goes into temporary service, it is pointed out to him definitely and clearly that it carries with it no obligation on the part of the Postmaster-General to find him permanent employment, and I think the hon. Member will agree that, if we had been able to do what he desires, it would only have meant that another man from North Aberdeen would not have had the job.

Mr. Garro Jones: This man is already in Post Office employment, and for 18 months he has been immune from any symptoms of the disease which is held to be a disqualification for established employment. My suggestion is that, if he is able to carry out the duties for 18 months, without any suggestion that he suffers from this disqualifying disease, the least that the Post Office might do is to allow him to be medically examined, and take the verdict of the medical officer on the medical question.

Sir W. Womersley: This question of medical examination has given me some concern since I went to the Post Office. I have discussed the matter with our medical staff on more than one occasion, and have not finished my researches. Established servants have a right of appeal to the Treasury medical referee, who is an independent medical officer; but in the case of an unestablished servant my argument is that, no pledge of permanent employment having been given to that person when he entered the service, when the question arises whether that man or another man with a clean bill of health shall be employed, I am sure we are not doing any injustice when we take the man with a clean bill of health. I know that I shall not be able to convince the hon. Member, and I do not blame him, because he is fighting for a constituent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) asked a question about our air mail services, and also wanted to know something about land lines in connection with the B.B.C. I shall be happy to make inquiries into the latter matter. We are very desirous of giving the public of this country a better service if that is at all possible, and we shall take this matter into consideration along with other matters connected with relay services. At the moment our experts are inquiring into the question of relay services and what shall be the future of those services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Sir E. Campbell), who has had a long experience at the Post Office, and who gave us some very interesting details of the trip he made by air on behalf of the Post Office, put one or two questions to me. He wanted to know when we expected to extend the service

beyond South Africa. We hope to extend it to India and Malaya towards he end of 1937, and to Australia in 1938 Flying boats will be used, and an extension to New Zealand is under consideration. We hope that the result of his visit and the conversations that he has with officials in the serivce in those countries, and the efforts that are being made to forward things, will result in a very satisfactory service. An important question has been raised about credit being given for work done by the Post Office We have a clearing-house system. We take care that we are paid for the services that we render. Other Departments owe us something like £250,000 and we will see that we get it or some service in return. They render service to us and we to them.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Accrington (Major Procter) wanted a reduction in the parcel post rates. We all want reductions in everything except what we sell. We did reduce parcel post rates two years ago and the service has only just begun to pay. There are other considerations than merely providing a cheap service, because in this we come into competition with railway companies and we have to work in conjunction with the railway companies. Our parcel post service is one of the cheapest services in the world and I am certain we give full value for money.
The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Markham) mentioned a matter that gives concern to the Postmaster-General and myself, the question of secrecy within the service. Every member of the Post Office, on coming into our employment, signs a strict declaration of secrecy, and the penalties for breach of this declaration are very severe. We are very concerned that there should be no question of secrets being conveyed from one person to another and, if we hear of any case—I know the hon. Member did not want to mention any names or get any one into trouble or difficulties, but it will have to come to that. There are times when you have to run the risk of doing an injury to someone, if you like to call it injury when it is a question of breach of discipline. There is no desire on our part that anything should be conveyed in the way of overheard conversations on the telephone outside or even to members of the staff inside. We


make that a definite stipulation and we shall emphasise it in future.
We are not responsible for the telephone boxes in the House. That is the responsibility of the First Commissioner of Works. But we are responsible for the boxes outside. I was not aware that they were so flimsy that conversations could be heard outside, though I have known cases where people have left the door open and conversations have been heard. I will have inquiries made and see what is the real position. Possibly they are the old-fashioned boxes which have been in use for some time, and not those introduced in the last few months.
The hon. Member for North Aberdeen tried to draw the old red herring across the track about the Post Office being a fine example of what nationalism means. He said, "Do not trot out the old argument that this is a monopoly." I am going to trot out that argument because this has been a monopoly since the reign of King Charles I, and, therefore, is deeply rooted in the heart and mind of the people of this country. I would have reminded him, if he had been present, that at any rate we have not to face foreign competition or competition of any kind. It was not a successful Department until really sound business men came into the Post Office and helped to make it what it is to-day, a sound business concern. If the wrong people were the political heads it might easily recede into the position that men would never claim it as an example of nationalisation. The advancement that has been made since the National Government undertook the great work of reorganising the Post Office as well as putting the finances of the country into a sound condition, and the improvements that have taken place in the last few years, justify me in saying that, after all, you must have business men at the head of this concern.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on this side of the House, we consider his last statement a very funny statement indeed?

Sir W. Womersley: I am not at all surprised at that. I know the hon. Gentleman. I have listened to him in this House and have had to sit silent and not answer him. If I told him what I think about him and his statements, we should both laugh.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I do not apologise for intervening in this Debate, because I have sat here during the whole of the time. I represent the smallest electorate in England, but at the same time I must voice what these people have asked me to say on the Floor of the House of Commons. I represent an agricultural area in the main. Although we are all pleased at the prosperity of the Post Office, there are some people engaged by the Post Office who are not sharing in the prosperity to the extent that they ought to be. We who receive letters, telegrams, and telephone calls perhaps do not realise the work that is going on behind the scenes. The Postmaster-General talked about visiting the large centres during the Recess. As he is the Archbishop of the Post Office, I would ask him to leave the cathedrals and visit some of the parish churches. He should go to the country districts and see the skimpy premises about which the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) spoke, and he should find out whether there is any truth in the statement about the violation of secrecy.
There are two sections of workers in connection with the Post Office on whose behalf I want to make a claim. The first section is that of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses of this country. They are a deserving and almost indispensable section of the community. What are the obligations of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses? They have to provide premises, render services of a confidential and responsible nature, and superintend their staffs, some of whom are more highly paid than they are themselves. I have lived in a country district for many years and I think the secrecy of and confidence in the Post Office in the rural districts is amazing. My experience is different from that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. All the years I have lived in the country I have never heard one breath of anything having escaped from the post office of the district.
These people not only find premises and have to superintend the post office and undertake enormous responsibility, financial and confidential, but they have to keep their premises open 10 hours a day. Think of the sorting they have to do. These sub-postmasters and postmistresses work 60 hours a week or more.


When they go on their holidays I understand that they have to provide a substitute and pay the substitute themselves. I asked a question on the 10th December, 1936, about the remuneration of these people. I asked how many scale payment sub-offices there were where the remuneration did not exceed £52 a year, and the Assistant Postmaster-General replied that the number was approximately 6,500. It is for some of those 6,500 that I am pleading to-night. He also said that scale payment sub-offices were usually run in conjunction with private businesses and that the Post Office emoluments were not intended to constitute the sole means of subsistence. I should think they are not. One pound a week for providing premises and doing all the onerous work to which I have referred. Does the Postmaster-General, do Members of this House think that £1 a week, or less in some cases—I asked about those that did not exceed £52 a year; so there are some with less—is enough to pay for these premises and these services?
We have heard some staggering figures and we have read some staggering figures of Post Office profits, but when one compares those staggering profits with the measly £52 a year, or less, one wonders what sort of prosperity have come to these unfortunate people in the country areas.
Another section for whom I want to make a claim are the auxiliary postmen, especially in the rural districts. They have work of a responsible and confidential character. Their job is an arduous one. Many times I have seen them setting out with a bag that I should not have liked to carry. They have to walk 10 or 12 miles. True, the bag becomes lighter as they proceed on their journey, but it is arduous to go these long distances. In the rural areas these men are not walking on good main roads and paved footpaths. They are walking over fields and fells, with no roads. In the winter fogs and snow are encountered. The wages that some of these men get are a disgrace not only to the Post Office but to the nation. Twenty-five shillings a week, and some of them put in 30 to 40 hours. I know what the answer will be. I shall be told that they are only part-time men. But I would point out that in winter some of them are engaged

six hours on their rounds, and they arrive home wet through and exhausted. You expect them to do that work at such pay.
That is why I said that I should like the Postmaster-General to pay a visit to the agricultural districts not in summer but in the depth of winter, when in the fells we have from 5 to 6 feet of snow. Then let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the miserable wage paid to these auxiliary postmen. Many of these postmen are ex-service men. I hope that their ex-Service pensions are not being exploited to pay them small wages. There has been a record year. I want us to celebrate this record year by taking these two classes of servants into consideration. They are inarticulate and retiring, and I hope that I have been able to say something in their behalf.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — TITLE.

Lords Amendment: In line 2, leave out from "provide" to the second "of" in line 3, and insert:
for securing farmers against any substantial fall in the price.

11.38 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It was pointed out in another place that the object of Part II of the Bill with regard to barley and oats is not to pay a subsidy in all circumstances. Indeed no subsidy is payable at the present price. The intention of the Amendment is to provide an assurance against a fall in price of a serious nature, and the Amendment more accurately describes the purpose of this part of the Bill.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: We are not going to keep the House about this form of words because they do not in any way alter the effect of the Bill. One is really amused by the way this matter was dealt with in another place. It was moved by a noble Lord who is most likely a landowner and possibly a farmer; and this is what he said.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): The right hon. Gentleman must not quote from debates in another place.

Mr. Alexander: Apparently the reason why the Amendment was put in was a psychological one. Farmers are said to be very sensitive about being exposed in any way to the suggestion that they are almost mendicants for charity from the State or are receiving any grant from State funds. All I can say is that this Bill, partly in regard to Part II and certainly in regard to other parts, makes provision under which the Treasury is authorised to pay more money to the farmers to prevent them making losses, and I should have thought that it would have been much better if the Bill had retained its original title. It does authorise the Treasury in certain circumstances to pay a subsidy. However, the new form of words may suit the tender skins of farmers who have been able to get from the Treasury something like £30,000,000, and so, I suppose, we need not ask the House to divide upon it. But we have not failed to take note of what happened in another place.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 9, line 27, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 11.—(Persons to and by whom payments, election and applications may be made.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 30, after "payment" insert:
otherwise than by virtue of an assignment.
(2) Where in any year there has occurred or occurs, at any time before the fourth day of June, a change in the occupation of a farm which, at the time of the change, comprised or comprises land under wheat, land under oats or land under barley, and the outgoing occupier is, by virtue of any custom or agreement, entitled to harvest any of the wheat, oats or barley, the appropriate Minister, upon application made to him by or on behalf of the outgoing occupier, may give directions for all or any of the following purposes, that is to say:—


(a) for determining the person or persons by whom any election for that year which may be made in respect of the farm under section seven of this Act, or any application under section nine of this Act for any subsidy payment which may be made for that year in respect of the farm, must be made in order to be effective;
(b) for requiring any such election to be approved by the appropriate Minister iu order that it may be effective;
(c) for securing, in a case where the outgoing occupier has the right to harvest the oats or barley or any part thereof, that the outgoing occupier will receive the whole or part of any such subsidy payment according as the appropriate Minister may determine;
and if and so far as, by virtue of any such directions as aforesaid, anything which under section six, section seven or section nine of this Act would otherwise fall to be done to or by the person who at the beginning of the fourth day of June was the occupier of a farm falls to be done to or by some other person, that section shall have effect as if any reference therein to the person who at the beginning of the said day was the occupier of the farm were, or as the case may be, included, a reference to that other person, and subsection (1) of this section shall be construed accordingly.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of the first part is to make it clear that this Clause does not refer to assignments. The purpose of the Clause is to ensure that if by death, bankruptcy or any other inevitable operation of law someone other than the actual owner of the farm stands in his shoes he shall be entitled to the benefit of the Bill. But it is not intended that by virtue of an assignment the title should pass. There is some doubt as to whether the Clause, if unamended, would have given that power, but it is necessary to put it beyond all doubt, and these words have that effect. The new Sub-section covers changes in occupation in certain circumstances.

Mr. Alexander: I am not quite clear whether the Amendment moved in another place was moved by the Government or not. I would like to know that.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. It was moved by the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 30, at the end, insert:

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Part II to Northern Ireland.)

The preceding provisions of this Part of this Act shall, in the application thereof to Northern Ireland, have effect as if for any reference in those provisions to the fourth day of June there were substituted a reference to the first day of June.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a purely machinery Clause, which arises from the fact that the date in question in Northern Ireland is to be June 1st, instead of 4th June as in this country.

Question put, and agree to.—[Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 19.—(Special payments in connection with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 38, leave out "arrangements" and insert "a scheme".

11.42 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is preparatory to an Amendment which follows.

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 20, leave out Sub-section (3) and insert:
(3) Any scheme made under this section, and any subsequent scheme amending a scheme so made, shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it has been approved by the Treasury, and if either House of Parliament, within the next twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after the scheme is laid before it, resolves that the scheme be annulled, the scheme shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new scheme.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment provides that the arrangements, which are now described as schemes, on account of the Amendment to which we have just agreed, shall be laid before Parliament. It is moved in order to make these schemes conform to the procedure governing similar schemes provided for in Part I. There is nothing of administrative importance in it.

Mr. Alexander: As you, Sir, have reminded the House that this raises a question of Privilege, I wonder whether the form of the Clause is appropriate. These are schemes in respect of which a grant of public money is involved. It would be possible, according to the Amendment, for the operation of a scheme to be interfered with by reason of some action taken in another place. This Amendment refers to either House of Parliament. I think we ought to be certain as to whether this is following the common form in regard to matters in which public money is involved, and if not, we ought not to allow it to pass.

Mr. Morrison: I think I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. The schemes in question are analogous to the schemes which are provided for in Part I, that is to say, the application of lime and basic slag to the soil. We had a discussion in the House on the matter, and agreed that in cases of this character, where indeed some considerable financial interest is involved, but where at the same time matters of policy are closely interwoven with the application of sums of money, this form of procedure was appropriate. In the case of this Clause, which deals with the administration of the attested herds scheme, matters of policy are also raised and are very closely intermixed with matters of finance. The schemes will have to provide the conditions under which a herd may be deemed to be attested, and it is quite likely that this House and the other place might like to express an opinion on the matter from time to time, to say, for example, that the conditions of attestation were too low, or that more strict supervision should he exercised, or indeed that they were too high. One could conceive very important issues of


policy with regard to the dairy industry being raised on this sort of matter. The two matters arc almost identical in constitutional importance and I see no objection to the House's agreement with the Amendment.

Mr. Davidson: If we agreed to the Amendment and if, in future, it is decided to debate certain cases of attestation, will it still be within the privilege of this House to exercise its own powers, as regards any financial provision?

Mr. Morrison: The Amendment leaves completely unimpaired the general financial control of the House over its own Votes, but it would be in order for us or for the other place to discuss the mere political and machinery provisions of a scheme. If there were disagreement, one could always put forward a new Order to resolve the matter. There is no question of giving up our privilege in matters of finance.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I regard this Amendment as much more important on the question of privilege than the Minister has made it out to be. All previous schemes of this kind for dealing with agricultural matters have required affirmative resolutions of this House to put them into operation. These schemes will not require affirmative resolutions but as the Bill left this House to go to another place, there was no provision in it by which the other place, as well as this House, could annul a scheme, the very operation of which depended upon granting of finance by this House. I think it is an exceedingly fortunate regulation which provides that attention should be called to the question of privilege on these occasions and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have duly carried it out by bringing to the notice of the House that this Amendment raises a question of privilege.
Speaking for the Opposition, one must have regard not merely to this Amendment, but to possible Bills, which may be sent by a future Government from this Chamber to another place dealing with schemes—and I use the words specially—not confined to agriculture, but including political and economic planning, and put forward perhaps by a Socialist Government. The reception of those pro-

posals in another place may be based upon the precedent which we are establishing to-night. This is a matter of importance and I have not received from the Minister an answer to the question: Is there any precedent, in connection with schemes which depend upon the granting of finance by this House, for the adoption of a provision which makes it possible for another place to annul such schemes by separate action on its own part? Unless we receive a more satisfactory explanation than has been available so far, we shall have to insist on this Amendment being withdrawn.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: Not only on this occasion but on other occasions has another place claimed powers, which the Constitution of this country says that it should not have. Here we have a determined effort on the part of those in another place to take to themselves additional powers and to deprive this House of its right to control finance. Under this proposal, this House should come to a decision on a matter which is essential to the national life, like agriculture, and if another place does not like our decision, it can refuse to pass the affirmative resolution and the whole business will be held up. That is a power which must not be given, and if the Government of to-day are prepared to undo the work of centuries, as far as carrying on the affairs of Parliament is concerned, then I hope the country will take note of the fact. Even if a majority of the House carries the Amendment against us to-night it will be for the country to see that its power in Parliament is not taken away from it by the action of that other place, which is endeavouring time after time to try and dig itself in, so that it may have a greater power over the people than it has been allowed to have.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: rose—

Mr. Kelly: Is no answer to be given?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Minister has already spoken three times.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 28, after "been," insert "sanctioned by a scheme," agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 25—(Superannuation rights of veterinary inspectors.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 14, at the end insert:
(a) the expression 'veterinary inspector' includes a person who, immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act, was a veterinary officer in Scotland:

11.52 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is purely a drafting Amendment arising from the fact that "veterinary officer" is the usual expression in Scottish Acts. We want to make it clear that the expression "Veterinary Inspector" includes the Scottish style of "Veterinary Officer".

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 32—(Application to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22 line 30, at the end, insert:
(d) subsection (2) of section eleven of this Act shall not apply, and in lieu thereof the following provision shall have effect:—
(2) Where in any year there has occurred or occurs, at any time before the fourth day of June, a change in the occupation of a farm which, at the time of the change, comprised or comprises land under oats or land under barley, and the outgoing occupier is, by virtue of any custom or agreement, entitled to harvest the oats or barley, or to receive payment therefor, the provisions of Part II of this Act shall, in relation to the said farm, have effect as if for any reference to the person who at the beginning of the fourth day of June in the said year was the occupier of the farm, there were substituted a reference to the outgoing occupier.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of privilege.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment arises from the fact—it was discovered by us at a rather late stage—that in Scotland, under the common law of that country, the outgoing occupier at Whitsuntide is entitled to harvest the crops or may be required to hand them over to the incoming occupier. In such cases there might be difficulty as to who was actually entitled to benefit under the language of the provisions contained in the Bill, and this Clause provides machinery by which the matter can be resolved. It seems to me to be quite equitable that the outgoing

occupier who has to bear the risk of prices which the crops may realise should receive a subsidy payment for his barley and oats. It will be quite easy to prevent any misuse of this provision because by May 28 all the crops are in the ground.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I have no objection to the principle which the Minister desires to secure this Amendment, but I wish to say that the Amendment again raises the question of Privilege. The number of occasions in the last few weeks on which we have been asked to deal at a very late hour of the night with Amendments from another place, the majority of which raise the question of Privilege, is becoming a serious matter. While I felt that I could not very well, with the attenuated attendance, divide the House, I wish to say that the practice which has grown up of bringing so many Amendments affecting the Privilege of the House for another place at a late hour—

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Mostly drafting Amendments.

Mr. Alexander: No, I have watched this matter very carefully and they are not drafting Amendments. They have raised constitutional issues at times. I shall have to report to my colleagues on this side of the House what has happened to-night and have the matter considered and if necessary, have the matter raised on a subsequent occasion.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: What appears to us in regard to this Amendment and many other matters which have been taken late at night, is that their consideration at these hours has been deliberately arranged for by the Government with the hope that they would be passed over in an attenuated House. I hope that some system, better for the legislation of this country will operate in future so that all the Members of the House and the country may know what is happening.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPER- ANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

11.56 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
It will be remembered that when we were discussing certain Amendments which had been made in another place, I undertook to go into them carefully with the local authorities' association and with any local authority which had any difficulty. I am glad to say that the local authorities confirm the view which I previously put to the House, that these Amendments are purely drafting and the authorities also state that they have no objection to any of them. The local authority of Glasgow in particular has said that the Amendments actually clarify the Bill.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: I wish briefly to confirm the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It may be that some hon. Members will desire to put questions on certain of the Amendments, in order to clarify the position with regard to one or two matters of detail, but in general, I am able to say the Amendments have been carefully examined and they will not be opposed from this side of the House. The local authorities Association concerned has been consulted in accordance with the undertaking given on the previous occasion.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 5.—(Power to admit employees of statutory undertakers, and registration officers.)

Lords Amendment. In page 9, line 26, leave out Sub-section (8) and insert:
(8) This Act shall not apply to any registrar of births, deaths and marriages holding office at the appointed day, if within one month after such appointed day he gives notice in writing to the council of the county or large burgh within which the whole or the greater part of his registration area is situate, that he so desires.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Mr. Elliot: I hope no one will object to the Amendment on that account. It carries out an undertaking given when the Bill was under discussion in this House. It is designed to secure that while an existing registrar shall have the option to remain out of the scheme, that shall not extend to those appointed after the appointed day. The Amendment has been considered with the local authorities Association and also with the professional body concerned, the Association of Registrars of Scotland.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I wish to know what is the exact effect of the Amendment as compared with the original Sub-section. May I, as one who raised the question of the right hon. Gentleman's consultation with the local authorities on those very important matters, take this opportunity of saying that the local authorities in Scotland have informed me that they are satisfied with the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has carried out his promise? It is only fair that, having raised this question on a previous occasion, I should make that statement. It seems to me that the whole thing was already covered. Is this merely a case of some member in another place who considers himself a grammatical expert, and is there really any difference in this new Clause?

Mr. Elliot: There is a big difference. Under the former Clause all registrars had the right to contract out. This Clause limits the right to those registrars who had been previously appointed, and does not allow those subsequently appointed to contract out. The mistake was not discovered in another place, but during the consideration of the Bill here.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special entry.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Reckoning of contributing and non-contributing service, and service of persons indirectly employed.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 36, leave out from "that" to the end of line 40, and insert:


no such service after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty shall be taken into account

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment was proposed in another place, and raises a question of Privilege, but I hope it will not incur any condemnation on that account since it is an Amendment that was asked for by all parts of the House, including the opposite benches. It carries out an undertaking.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Mathers: We are all pleased that an Amendment of this kind is included. It was due to the insistence of the Scottish Members that it has been put in both the English and Scottish Bills, and we have done a good stroke of business in getting it made.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special entry.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Actuary's certificates and periodical valuation of superannuation fund.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 10, after "shall" insert:
within three months after receiving the valuation and report

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is thought desirable to insert a date for the submission of the scheme specially made under the Sub-section as the Bill does with regard to other schemes.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 12, at the end, insert:
A committee appointed for the purposes of the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, 1887 to 1920

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I hope that no exception will be taken by the House to this Amendment, although it raises a question of Privilege. It will place all library officials on a new basis as regards superannuation. In counties such officials who are directly employed by a county automatically come within the superannuation scheme. In the burghs such officials are normally employed by the library committees. The Amendment secures that they will automatically come within the scheme.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.

Lords Amendment: In line 35, at the end, insert:
4. Where the fund out of which the remuneration of an asylum employee was or is paid by the body under which he was or becomes such an employee is not the fund out of which superannuation allowances are paid to such employees, the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Bill as it stood makes provision for ordinary cases in which superannuation allowances are payable to employés out of the fund from which their remuneration is obtained. The Amendment covers cases in which allowances are paid from different funds.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.